Punjab & Haryana HC: Co-Owner Must Be Impleaded as Necessary Party in Land Dispute, Order Rejecting Impleadment Set Aside
Case Name: Gurmeet Kaur v. Mukhtiar Singh & Ors.
Date of Judgment: January 13, 2020
Citation: CR No. 5458 of 2016 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Walia
Held: The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the trial court’s order which had dismissed the petitioner’s application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment. It held that since the petitioner was a recorded co-sharer in the revenue records with respect to the disputed land, she was a necessary party to the suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction. A co-owner has the right to defend property and no effective adjudication can take place in their absence. The trial court erred in treating the suit as merely one for permanent injunction and ignoring that the relief of declaration directly concerned ownership rights.
Summary: Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed a civil suit against other respondents seeking declaration of entitlement to mutation based on sale deeds of 1962 and 1964 regarding land in village Makhanwindi, District Amritsar, along with consequential permanent injunction. The petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded, asserting she was a co-sharer recorded in the jamabandi and thus an interested party. The trial court dismissed the application, holding she was not a necessary party as the suit was for injunction and the plaintiffs alone could plead from whom they faced threat of dispossession. On revision, the High Court found that earlier litigation had already recognized the petitioner as a co-sharer in the same land. It relied on precedents such as B.P. Dhandha v. Ram Saran Bhatia (2002) and Jagjit Singh v. Charanjit Singh (2014), which held that a co-owner is a necessary party to prevent fraudulent or one-sided adjudication. The Court observed that ownership rights cannot be determined without impleading all co-sharers, and the petitioner’s absence would render any decree incomplete or ineffective.
Decision: The High Court allowed the revision, impleaded the petitioner as a defendant in the civil suit, and directed the trial court to grant her opportunity to file a written statement before proceeding further.