Facts
The Petitioner (Plaintiff) filed a partition suit (Original Suit No. 631 of 2011) regarding properties listed in Schedules A, B, and C.
Source reference: p. 2The trial court decreed the suit in part, granting relief only for properties in Schedule A and C.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 4Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal, which was transferred to the court of the Additional Judicial Commissioner–XVIII, Ranchi as Civil Appeal No. 158 of 2019.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4During pendency, Opposite Party No. 1 (a subsequent purchaser of portions of Schedule A property) filed an application for impleadment as a respondent.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4The appellate court allowed this application via order dated 15.03.2023.
Source reference: p. 2The Petitioner challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that since the suit was allegedly decreed for Schedule B property (which the purchaser did not buy), the impleadment was improper.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5Issues
1. Whether a subsequent purchaser of local property involved in a partition suit is a "proper party" for impleadment at the appellate stage.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 72. Whether the appellate court committed a jurisdictional error or illegality in allowing the impleadment of the subsequent purchaser.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 9-10Law Applied
The court applied Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act regarding lis pendens and the impleadment principles under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4It relied on Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (2010) to distinguish between necessary and proper parties.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7Furthermore, it followed Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. (2007) and Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (2022), establishing that a party showing a "fair semblance of title or interest" can be impleaded to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8Reasoning
The High Court rejected the Petitioner's factual contention that the partition suit was only decreed for Schedule B property. Upon perusal of the trial court record, the Court found that the decree specifically concerned Schedule A and C properties.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 9Since it was undisputed that Opposite Party No. 1 had purchased plots 751, 752, and 753, which are part of Schedule A, he possessed a direct interest in the outcome of the appeal.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 9The Court reasoned that as a subsequent purchaser, his presence is essential to "completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate" the matter.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7Excluding him would lead to a multiplicity of litigation, as he would otherwise be forced to file a separate suit for cancellation of any adverse decree later.
Source reference: p. 5-6, para. 8Consequently, the court found no procedural or legal infirmity in the lower court's exercise of jurisdiction.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 9Holding
The High Court held that the subsequent purchaser is at least a "proper party" because an effective decree cannot be passed in his absence regarding the property he now holds.
The Court found no grounds for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 10The Civil Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed, and the lower court's order impleading Opposite Party No. 1 was upheld.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 11Original Court PDF
GANESH SAHUvsRAKESH RAJAN
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in