Mere Claim Of Ownership Of Suit Property Doesn't Make Third Party A Necessary Party In Small Causes Suit: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that third party claiming independent title doesn't become necessary or proper party merely by asserting it in a small causes suit. It held that such a person can be brought on record only where his title has to be decided before the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief claimed can be determined.

Order I Rule 10 CPC governs the addition of parties to a suit. Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 provides for return of the plaint where the plaintiff's right and the relief he claims depend on proof or disproof of a title the Small Causes Court cannot finally decide.

Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,

“The mere assertion of an interest in the subject property does not, therefore, make a person either a necessary or a proper party. What is material is whether, in the absence of such person, the Court can effectively and completely adjudicate upon the controversy before it. The power of impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC is intended to facilitate effective adjudication of the dispute brought before the Court and not to enlarge the scope of the suit by introducing an independent dispute which is not necessary for deciding the relief claimed by the plaintiff.”

The dispute concerned a shop on the ground floor of a two-storey construction which, on the pleadings, had belonged to late Jagdish Prasad Mittal. In a Small Causes Suit pending before the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Bulandshahr, the revisionist applied to be impleaded, pleading that the deceased had executed an unregistered Will dated 22^nd November 2019 in his favour before two witnesses, and that the plaintiff was wrongly claiming exclusive rights on the strength of a different Will.

The plaintiff opposed the application, calling the revisionist a stranger to the family and his Will a fabricated document produced to delay the suit, and relied on a registered Will dated 23^rd September 2019. The court below rejected the application, noting that the revisionist held no declaration from a competent court recognising his rights under the Will he relied upon.

Before the High Court, the revisionist argued that the court below could not have treated the Will as forged without letting him lead evidence. Relying on the general position that an unregistered Will is not invalid for want of registration and that a testator may lawfully exclude his natural heirs, he argued that he ought to have been impleaded under Order I Rule 10 CPC. It was further urged that the Small Causes Court should in any event have returned the plaint under Section 23 because a question of title was involved.

The Court held that whether a person is a necessary or proper party must be tested against the relief sought and the questions the Court has to answer to grant it. It observed that the revisionist claimed nothing under the landlord-tenant relationship forming the subject matter of the suit; his case rested on the Will of 22^nd November 2019, and deciding it would require findings on that Will's genuineness, execution and effect. The Court held that the dispute could be decided without going into his claim at all.

It relied on its decision in Murti Markandeshwar Ji Maharaj Gopal Ki Bagiya City Jhansi v. Smt. Jyoti Gangwani and another, where impleadment sought by a third party asserting an independent right in the premises was refused on the view that landlord-tenant proceedings cannot be enlarged to accommodate a claim of title, which belongs before the competent forum. That case arose under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, but the Court held the principle applicable here.

On Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, the Court distinguished between title arising incidentally in a Small Causes Suit and title requiring final adjudication. It held that a suit is not incompetent merely because some question of title surfaces in it, nor must every rival claimant be brought on record on that account.

“Section 23 contemplates return of the plaint where the right of the plaintiff and the relief claimed by him depend upon the proof or disproof of a title which the Small Causes Court cannot finally determine. The provision is concerned with the foundation of the plaintiff's right to the relief claimed and not merely with the existence of some dispute relating to title in respect of the suit property. The mere assertion of an independent title by a third person does not, by itself, attract Section 23.”

The Court clarified that it was recording no finding on the genuineness, execution or effect of the Will dated 22^nd November 2019, and that the observations of the court below on its nature could not be read as a final adjudication of validity.

It noted that the revisionist had already filed Original Suit seeking a declaration of his rights under that Will, in which no interim injunction had been granted. That suit, the Court held, gave him a forum for his claim but no right to be impleaded here.

“The principle that emerges is that a third person claiming an independent title in the suit property does not become a necessary or proper party to a Small Causes Suit merely because the title asserted by him may compete with, or be inconsistent with, the title claimed by the plaintiff. Unless adjudication of such claim is necessary for determining the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief sought, an independent title dispute cannot be introduced into the proceedings through an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC.”

Holding that the order of the court below suffered from no jurisdictional error, material irregularity or perversity warranting interference under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, the Court dismissed the revision.

Case Title: Manish Bansal v. Jagdish Prasad Mittal and 7 others

Click Here To Read/Download Order