Order 2

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI
(BANDRA BRANCH)
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT 15
IN
R.A.E. SUIT NO.108 OF 2023
(CNR : MHSCA2-000186-2023)
Shri Mamchand Udaychand Dayma … Plaintiff
V/s
Shri Moorji Devji Haria ... Defendant
And
Mr. Tarachand Mahadeo Dayma and anr. … Interveners / Applicants
Coram : D. P. Kasat,
Judge, C.R.No.32 (B.B.),
Date : 06.10.2025
ORAL ORDER :
By this application, the intervener / third party
applicants are contending that they are the co-owners of the suit
property alongwith plaintiff. The plot of land was allotted by
Government to Khatik community. The suit premises was constructed
by their grand-father Mr. Jairam Dayma. Said Jairam had two sons
namely Udaychand and Mahadev. They are the sons of Mahadev. The
plaintiff by playing tactics to file suit and enter into consent terms
and obtained possession of tenanted premises, is trying to usurp the
tenanted premises unlawfully. Similar strategy has been used by
plaintiff in RAE Suit No.338 of 2021 in respect of shop No.6, plot
No.28 despite having knowledge that they have filed RAD Suit
No.391 of 2021. Present suit is also a part of same modus-operandi.
As such, being co-owners and necessary party they be permitted to
join as a party in this suit. Even the defendants and plaintiff in
collusion of each other are intending to sell the suit premises.
/home/steno32/DPK/Order/Oct-25/RAE-108-2023-Exh-15-join party-intervener.odt
-- 1 of 4 --
2
Therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is essential
to allow them to join as a party defendants in this suit.
2. The plaintiff by filing say at Exh.16 resisted the
application by contending that the application is false and not
maintainable. The applicants are neither a proper nor a necessary
party to this suit. The applicants and defendant are hand in gloves
with each other and such an application is filed only with an
intention that plaintiff should not succeed in the suit. If at all, the
applicants have any rights as co-owners, they have a separate cause
of action. In this suit, the issue of title / ownership cannot be
adjudicated. Though the applicants are the sons of deceased
Mahadev, rest of the allegations made by them against him are false.
Such an application is filed with an ulterior motive. As such, by
denying all the contentions in the application, he has prayed for
rejection of the application.
3. Heard both sides. From the contentions raised in this
application, it appears that the applicants are the sons of deceased
Mahadev who was the brother of the father of present plaintiff. As
such, as per their contention, the applicants are the co-owners of the
suit property and suit premises.
4. In the present matter, the plaintiff has filed suit by
contending himself as owner and landlord in respect of suit property.
It is also pertinent to note that the plaintiff has specifically contended
that the Government had allotted suit property to his grandfather
deceased Jairam. Said Jairam had two sons namely Udaychand and
Mahadev. Udaychand had four sons and Mahadev had five sons
including interveners. It is also significant to note that the plaintiff
has claimed his ownership on the basis of Will of his grandmother
/home/steno32/DPK/Order/Oct-25/RAE-108-2023-Exh-15-join party-intervener.odt
-- 2 of 4 --
3
Dhanibai.
5. In view of these contentions of the plaintiff in the plaint,
it becomes clear that he has not denied his relationship with the
interveners. It is also essential to mention here that even if there is
some dispute amongst the plaintiff and his family members regarding
Will of grandmother Dhanibai and regarding ownership of suit
property, this court is having no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the
issue of ownership. More so, even if for a while, it is assumed that the
interveners are having some interest in the suit property and they are
also the co-owners of the suit property, it is well settled law that suit
filed by one of the co-owners is maintainable. More so, it is well
settled law that in an eviction suit, the question of title for the extent
of share cannot be decided nor can be made a subject matter for
determination. More so, a co-owner or co-landlord can file a suit for
eviction against tenant and for that purpose, all the co-owners or co-
sharers are neither the necessary parties nor the proper parties. It is
also well settled law that the suit for eviction can be decreed or
dismissed on merits even without the presence of other co-owners or
co-landlords. It is also essential to mention here that in such a suit
only issue required to be dealt with is whether there exists any
relationship of landlord and tenant and whether grounds pleaded in
plaint for seeking eviction are established or not. For adjudication of
these issues, the presence of co-owner is not at all required.
6. Apart from this, it is also essential to mention here that
as per well settled legal principles, even if any finding is given by
court in an eviction suit touching to the question of title in respect of
suit property, it would not be binding upon the court which is dealing
with an independent civil suit in respect of partition or declaration or
/home/steno32/DPK/Order/Oct-25/RAE-108-2023-Exh-15-join party-intervener.odt
-- 3 of 4 --
4
adjudication of rights of other co-owners.
7. Accordingly, in view of these settled principles of law, if
the facts of present case are looked into, it becomes crystal clear that
the applicants are claiming themselves to be co-owners in respect of
suit property and on that basis, they are seeking to add themselves as
a party to this suit. However, in view of the above stated clear legal
position, the presence of co-owner in an eviction suit is neither
necessary nor proper. If at all, any grievance of co-owner is there, he
can approach the appropriate forum for its resolution. However, for
that purpose, there appears absolutely no necessity to implead the
interveners / applicants as a party to this suit. Consequently, in view
of all above discussion, following order is passed :-
ORDER
The application stands rejected.
(D. P. Kasat)
Judge, C.R.No.32 (B.B.)
06.10.2025
Dictated on : 06.10.2025
Checked & signed on : 06.10.2025
/home/steno32/DPK/Order/Oct-25/RAE-108-2023-Exh-15-join party-intervener.odt
-- 4 of 4 --