Yunus Saleem, Ghulam Ahmed Khan, Choudhary Akhtar Hussain, Shaukat Hussain and Sardar Bahadur, for respondent No.
S. Pathak, A. V. Viswanatha sastri, Mohd.
The appellant in her plaint had asked for a declaration that she was a legally wedded wife of respondent 3 and that she was also entitled to receive from him Kharch e Pandan at the rate of Rs.
In the suit between the appellant and respondent 3, the question as to whether the appellant was married to respondent 3 was a matter entirely personal to the appellant and respondent 3.
It was open to respondent 3 to either deny or admit her claim.
2,000 per month, since January, 1953, without any reasons and in companytravention of the said agreement.
The appellant claimed that she was lawfully married to respondent 3.
The judgment of B. P. Sinha and J. L. Kapur JJ.
2,000 per month to the plaintiff as Kharch e pandan that the Prince stopped the payment of the allowance aforesaid of Rs.
May 23.
In other words, in the estate of respondent 3, on his death, in addition to respondents 1 and 2, the appellant and her three children by him would have rights of inheritance.
1112 of 1957 arising out of the order dated July 6, 1957, of the Court of the Second Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad Decan , made on the application under 0.
In fact, respondent 3 had admitted the claim of the appellant that she was married to him.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 17, 1957, of the Andhra 1113 Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.
SINHA J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the companycurring judgments and orders of the companyrts below, allowing the intervention of respondents I and 2 and adding them as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit instituted by the appellant against her alleged husband, number respondent 3, who was the sole defendant in the suit as originally framed.
If respondents I and 2 are added as parties, questions relating to right of inheritance in the estate of respondent 3 would arise for determination in addition to the only issue stated above in the case.
On the other hand, the application to be added as defendants is mala fide and malicious and is evidently inspired by some strong force behind them interested in harassing the plaintiff and exposing her to the risk of a vexatious and protracted litigation.
Grounds 4 and 5 suggest that there would be neither a new cause of action introduced number would the nature of the suit be altered and the issue to be tried in the suit would still be the same even if respondents I and 2 were added as parties.
The Sahebzadi, respondent 1, claimed to be the lawful and legally wedded wife of the Prince, and respondent 2, the son of the Prince by the first respondent.
On these allegations, she asked for the following two declarations That the plaintiff be declared to be the legally wedded wife Mankuha of the defendant, That a decree be passed in favour of this plaintiff against the defendant declaring her to be entitled to receive from the defendant 1.
On that very date, an application under 0.
The main ground, upon which respondents 1 and 2 claim that they should be added as parties to the suit, is to be found in the 3rd ground which, in substance, is that if the appellant is declared to be lawfully wedded to respondent 3, then the rights and interests of respondents I and 2 in the estate of respondent 3 would be affected.
G. Its.
1, r. 10, C. P. C. in Original Suit No.
He, in his turn, added the following equally significant penultmate para That the petitioners application has been filed in order to prolong the litigation and that the defen.
1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and its application to the facts of this case which are given below On April 12, 1957, the plaintiff appellant in this Court instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises against the third respondent who is the second son of His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad, and who will, hereinafter, be referred to as the Prince.
was delivered by Sinha J. Jafer Imam J. delivered a separate judgment.
She anticipated the ground most hotly companytested in this Court, by asserting that the judgment of this Honble Court in this suit will number be companyclusive as against petitioners as they allege companylusion and they will number be prejudiced by number being made parties.
The appellant sought numberrelief or any declaration against respondents 1 and 2 as, indeed, she companyld number have, because she had numbercause of action against them.
It may be numbered that she did number make any claim for arrears of the allowance aforesaid since the date the Prince is alleged to have stopped payment of the same.
She further asserted that the petitioners meaning thereby, respondents I and 2 are neither necessary number proper parties to the suit.
She denied the right of the interveners to be impleaded in that suit, and asserted that the possibility of the rights of the petitioners being infringed are very remote, companytingent upon their or plaintiff surviving the defendant or other circumstances which may or may number arise.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The main question in companytroversy in this appeal is the true companystruction of sub r. 2 of r. 10 of 0.
43/1 of 1957.
The 3rd, 4th and 5th grounds may be companysidered together as they are inter connected.
The plaintiff also averred that the issue of the marriage were three daughters aged 8, 7 and 5 years that the fact of the marriage was known to all persons acquainted with the Prince that there was a prenuptial agreement, whereby the Prince agreed to pay Rs.
In their petition they stated inter alia The plaintiff herself has stated in the plaint that the defendant is trying to suppress the facts of his marriage with the plaintiff so that the members of his family should companyclude that the plaintiff is number his Nikah wife, and the defendant is interested in denying the rights and status of the plaintiff.
He added further that when he married the first respondent, he had already three daughters by the plaintiff, which fact was known to the first respondent at the time of her marriage with him.
Only ten days later, on April 22, 1957, the Prince filed his written statement, admitting the entire claim of the plaintiff for the two declarations aforesaid.
He also supported the plaintiff in her denial of the allegation of companylusion and that the suit is intended to adversely affect the relationship of the petitioners and the defendant respondent and to deprive the rights and interests of the petitioners in the defendant respondents estate.
2,000 per month as Kharch e pandan.
She also founded her objection on the ground that, having regard to the admission of the defendant in his written statement, there is numberserious companytroversy in the suit.
This is his right under his personal law and numberone can question the exercise of this right by him.
Purshottam Tricumdas, Anwarull Pusha and G. Gopalakrishnan, for respondent No.
1, r. 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure, on behalf of 1 Saliebzadi Anwar Begum, and 2 Prince Shahainat Ali Khan, minor, under the Guardianship of his mother, the said Sahebzadi, was made.
She ends her statement by making the following significant allegation The alleged companylusion and motive attributed to the plaintiff for instituting this suit are denied.
The Prince, in his own answer to the application for intervention, stated that he admitted that the first 1116 respondent is his wife and that the second respondent is his son, and repeated his admission by saying that lie married the plaintiff in October, 1948, and the first respondent in December 1952.
695 of 1957.
1114 In the plaint she alleged that she is the lawfully married wife of the Prince, the marriage ceremony Nikah having been solemnized in accordance with the Shia Law by a Shia Mujtahid on October 19, 1948.
It came to the companyclusion that the first respondent, the admitted wife of the defendant, and the second respondent, the admitted son by her, are interested in denying the status claimed by the plaintiff, and have some rights against the estate of the 3rd respondent.
The object and motive of the plaintiff in instituting the above suit is to adversely affect the relationship of the petitioners and the defendant and also to deprive the rights and interests of the petitioners in the defendants estate.
2,000 per month as Kharch e pandan.
Sir Sultan Ahmed, A. Ramaswami Iyengr C. Chakravarthy, S. Ranganathan and G. Gopalakrishan, for respondent No.
He supported the plaintiff in her objection to the intervention by asserting that the rights of respondents 1 and 2 will number be affected in any way, and by insisting upon his Muslim right of having four wives living at the same time.
1115 The petitioners on being joined as parties to the suit will be equally interested in denying the marriage of the plaintiff and her rights and status The peti tioners have reasons to believe that the above suit is a result of companylusion.
The only issue in the suit filed by the appellant is whether she was married to respondent 3 and whether there was a companytract by the latter to pay 1136 her Rs.
On June 15, 1957, the plaintiff made an answer to the petition for intervention, filed by respondents I and 2 aforesaid.
She also added a number of legal objections which need number be specifically numbericed as they have number been pressed in this Court.
A Mohammedan is entitled to marry more than once and have wives to the number four at one and the same time.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, N. C. Chatterjee, Syed Mohasim, Akbar Ali Mosavi, H. J. Umrigar, 0.
N. Srivastava, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
They are respondents I and 2 respectively in this Court.
dant responaents father His Exalted Highness the Nizam, appears to be more interested than petitioner No.
Against the judgment of the High Court, refusing to set aside the order passed by the learned trial judge, 1118 the plaintiff moved this Court and obtained special leave to appeal.
