A person claiming an interest in disputed property may be impleaded for complete adjudication.

The petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 173 of 2011 seeking declaration of her right, title and interest over land measuring 3 kathas 9 chataks situated at M.S. Plot No. 375, Holding No. 218, Ward No. VI (Old), corresponding to Ward No. 23/13, Tamtamtoli Road, Kantatoli Chowk, Ranchi, along with permanent injunction.

She claimed title through a registered sale deed dated 16 February 1995 executed by Swapan Kumar Saha, who had allegedly purchased the property by registered deed dated 26 September 1980, and asserted mutation and possession over the property.

Md. Sabir, President of Public Urdu Middle School, Kantatoli Chowk, filed an intervention petition in the title suit.

The trial court allowed the intervention by order dated 24 February 2014.

The intervener relied upon municipal communications stating that M.S. Plot No. 375 was municipal property, that the petitioner’s holding had been cancelled, and that an Urdu school was situated on the plot.

Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the intervention/impleadment application of Md. Sabir in Title Suit No. 173 of 2011 concerning the disputed M.S. Plot No. 375?

Whether the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, should interfere with the trial court’s order allowing intervention?

The Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to examine the legality of the trial court’s order.

It applied the principles governing impleadment and intervention stated by the Supreme Court in Vidur Impex & Traders (P) Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments (P) Ltd., (2012) 8 SCC 384, namely that a person may be impleaded where his presence is necessary for effective and complete adjudication; a necessary party is one in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed; and a proper party is one whose presence enables the court to completely and effectively adjudicate the dispute.

The Court further recognised that the merits of competing claims to title or possession are to be determined in the substantive title suit on the basis of evidence, rather than conclusively at the stage of intervention.

The Court found that the petitioner claimed exclusive ownership and possession over M.S. Plot No. 375, while the intervener relied on municipal documents indicating that the plot was municipal property and that an Urdu school was being run thereon.

Although the petitioner disputed that the school occupied the portion of land forming the subject matter of the suit, the Court held that this factual controversy could be resolved only after evidence was led in the title suit.

Since the documents produced by the intervener disclosed a prima facie connection with the same plot and raised an issue concerning the identity and extent of the disputed portion, his presence would assist in effectively and completely adjudicating the controversy.

Applying the principles in Vidur Impex, the Court held that the trial court had correctly allowed the intervention and that no jurisdictional or legal error warranting interference under Article 227 had been established.

The writ petition was dismissed, the trial court’s order dated 24 February 2014 was upheld, and the interim order earlier granted was vacated.

The parties were permitted to appear before the trial court, which was directed to proceed with the title suit in accordance with law and determine the competing claims on the basis of evidence.