RAZIA BEGUM versus SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM & OTHERS

Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 1111 · Decided: 23-05-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
. I 
S.C.R. 
• 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
RAZIA BEGUM 
v. 
1111 
SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM & OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM and J. L. KAPUR JJ.) 
Civil Procedure-Addition of parties-Declaratory suit-Claim 
of status as married wife-Admission by husband-Right of wife and 
son denying plaintiff's claim, to be added as parties-Mohammedan 
law-Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of I9@8), 0. I, r. I0(2)-Speci-
fic Relief Act (I of I877), ss. 42, 43. 
The appellant instituted a suit against the third respondent, 
inter alia, for a declaration that she was his lawfully married 
wife, alleging that though the fact of her marriage was known 
to all who knew him, he was trying to suppress the facts in such 
a way that the members of his family should conclude that she 
was not his Nikah wife, that he refused to openly acknowledge 
her as his legally wedded wife and that this conduct on his part 
had cast a cloud on her status as such wife and was affecting 
the rights of the issue of the marriage, her three daughters. 
The third respondent filed his written statement admitting the 
claim, but on the same date respondents I and 2 made an 
app.!ication under 0. I, r. 10(2), of the Code of Civil Procedure 
for being impleaded in the suit as defendants on the grounds 
that they were respectively the wife and son of the third respon-
dent, that they were interested in denying the appellant's status 
as wife and the status of her children as the legitimate children 
of the third respondent, that the suit was the result of a collu-
sion between the appellant and the third respondent and that if 
the appellant was declared to be lawfully wedded to the third 
respondent, the rights and interests of respondents I and 2 in the 
estate of the third respondent would be affected. The applica-
tion was contested by both the appellant and the third respon-
dent. The trial court allowed the application and the order 
was confinved by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 
The question was whether the lower courts did not exceed their 
powers in directing the addition of respondents r and 2 as 
parties-defendants in the action : 
May 23. 
Held (per Sinha and KapurJJ., Imam].. dissenting), that in 
view of the averments in the plaint which showed that not only 
the third respondent but the other members of his family, 
• 
including respondents r and 2, were interested in denying the 
appellant's status as a legally wedded wife, respondents 1 and 2 
were proper parties to the suit. 
The question of addition of parties under 0. r, "r. 10, of the 
Code of Civil Procedure is generally not one of initial juris-
diction of the court, but of a judicial discretion; in a suit for a • 
declaration as regards status or a legal character. unde.r s. 42_ of 
• 
• 
1112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1959] 
r958 
the Specific Relief Act, th<! rule that in order that a person may 
be added as a party he must have a present or direct interest in 
Rasia Begum 
the subject-matter of the suit, is not wholly applicable, and the 
v. 
rule may be relaxed in a suitable case where the court is of the 
A11war Begum opinion that by adding that party it would be in a better posi-
tion effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the contro-
versy. 
In such suits the court is not bound to grant the declara-
tion prayed for, on a mere admission of the claim by the defen-
dant, if the court has reasons to insist upon clear proof, apart 
. from the admission. 
A declaratory judgment in respect of a disputed status will 
be binding not only upon the parties actually before the court 
but also upon persons claiming through them respectively, with-
in the meaning of s. 43 of the Specific Relief Act. The word 
"respectively" in the section has been used with a v.iew to 
showing that the parties arrayed on either side, are really claim-
ing adversely to one another, so far as the declaration is con-
cerned. 
Per Imam J.-The facts of the present case do not justify 
the addition of respondents I and 2 as defendants under the 
provisions of 0. I, r. 10(2), of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
because :-
(1) There is nothing in the pleadings to suggest that respon-
dents I and 2 were denying the appellant's status as wife of the 
third respondent, and the court ought not to compel the plain-
tiff to add parties to the suit where on the face of the pleadings 
plaintiff has no cause of action against them. 
(2) Under the Mohammedan law a man is entitled to have 
four wives at one and the same

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.