The Allahabad High Court has held that a person claiming independent ownership of a disputed property cannot seek impleadment in a Small Causes Suit merely because his claim conflicts with the title asserted by the plaintiff.
Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava dismissed the revision filed by Manish Bansal against the order refusing to add him as a party to the pending proceedings. The Court made it clear that an independent title dispute cannot be brought into a landlord-tenant case unless deciding that title is necessary for determining the relief sought in the suit.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned a shop situated on the ground floor of a two-storey building. Manish Bansal sought to be impleaded on the basis of an unregistered Will dated November 22, 2019, allegedly executed by late Jagdish Prasad Mittal in his favour.
The plaintiff, however, relied upon a registered Will dated September 23, 2019. The trial court rejected Bansal's impleadment application, noting that his claim was based on the later unregistered Will and that he had not obtained a declaration from a competent court recognising his alleged rights.
Bansal argued before the High Court that the validity and legal effect of his Will required evidence and that he should therefore be allowed to participate in the proceedings. He also pointed out that he had already filed Original Suit No. 45 of 2025 seeking a declaration of his rights under the Will.
Court's Observation
The High Court clarified that it was not deciding whether the November 22, 2019 Will was genuine or forged. That issue was outside the scope of the revision concerning impleadment.
The Court observed,
“The mere assertion of an interest in the subject property does not, therefore, make a person either a necessary or a proper party.”
It explained that the relevant question is whether the person's presence is required for the court to effectively decide the controversy before it.
Justice Srivastava further noted that the Small Causes Court was dealing with a landlord-tenant dispute, while Bansal's claim arose independently from the Will. Determining the genuineness, execution and legal effect of that Will would involve a separate title dispute.
The Court also rejected the argument for returning the plaint under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. It held that Section 23 would apply where the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief itself depended upon determination of a substantial title question. That situation was not established in the present case.
Decision
The High Court held that Bansal had failed to show that his presence was necessary or proper for deciding the landlord-tenant dispute. His independent claim under the Will could be pursued in the separate declaratory suit already filed by him.
Finding no jurisdictional error, material irregularity or perversity in the trial court's order, the Court dismissed the revision on August 11, 2026.
Case Details:
Case Title: Manish Bansal v. Jagdish Prasad Mittal and 7 Others
Case Number: S.C.C. Revision No. 90 of 2026
Judge: Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Decision Date: August 11, 2026
