Skip to content


Kalyan Singh Vs. Kagdi Ram and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 48 of 1973
Judge
Reported inAIR1977HP73
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 1, Rule 10
AppellantKalyan Singh
RespondentKagdi Ram and ors.
Appellant Advocate D. Gupta, Adv.
Respondent Advocate H.S. Thakur, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....suit, and consequently kagadi ram impleaded kalyan singh, the son of gokal, as defendant in the suit. kalyan singh applied to the trial court for an order transposing him from the array of defendants to the array of plaintiffs. the application was moved on the basis that he, kalyan singh, had a better title to pre-empt the sale than the original plaintiff, kagadi ram, and therefore he should be entitled to sue for a decree for possession by pre-emption in his favour. the trial court rejected his application by an order dated august 1, 1973. kalyen singh now applies in revision. 3. it is apparent that kalyan singh was impleaded, by the plaintiff kagadi ram as a defendant in the suit in his capacity as representing the estate of the vendor gokal. there was no other reason for impleading.....
Judgment:
ORDER

R.S. Pathak, C.J.

1. This is a revision petition directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rohru refusing to transpose the petitioner from the array of defendants to the array of plaintiffs.

2. One Gokal sold a parcel of land to Naratu Ram. A pre-emption suit was filed by Kagdi Ram on the footing that he was co-sharer of Gokal and was, therefore, entitled to pre-empt the sale. Gokal had died before the institution of the suit, and consequently Kagadi Ram impleaded Kalyan Singh, the son of Gokal, as defendant in the suit. Kalyan Singh applied to the trial Court for an order transposing him from the array of defendants to the array of plaintiffs. The application was moved on the basis that he, Kalyan Singh, had a better title to pre-empt the sale than the original plaintiff, Kagadi Ram, and therefore he should be entitled to sue for a decree for possession by pre-emption in his favour. The trial Court rejected his application by an order dated August 1, 1973. Kalyen Singh now applies in revision.

3. It is apparent that Kalyan Singh was impleaded, by the plaintiff Kagadi Ram as a defendant in the suit in his capacity as representing the estate of the vendor Gokal. There was no other reason for impleading him as defendant. The suit as framed was intended to try the claim asserted by Kagadi Ram founded on the right of pre-emption claimed by him. If any relief was decreed to him, it would involve a decree not only against the vendee but also against Kalyan Singh. To permit Kalyan Singh to become a plaintiff and assert the right of pre-emption claimed by him would be to alter the very nature of the suit and the capacity in which Kalyan Singh was impleaded. That cannot be allowed.

4. The revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //