Back
Rules Outsider's Cannot Be Challenged In Among Family Members
The has firmly held that an of made by an outsider cannot be made the subject matter of a between members of the joint family. Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed a challenging the 's refusal to allow amendments seeking to the and bring the disputed property back into the suit.
Case Background: A Dispute Over Land Survey No.151A
The petitioners, Arun Narayan Patil and others, were plaintiffs in a (S.C. Suit No. 9984 of 1991, originally High Court Suit No. 1212 of 1991) seeking a declaration that certain properties, including land bearing Survey No.151A at Nahur, were and partition thereof. The land had been transferred by the Khot family (Ratansey Karsandas and others) to by an dated —well before the suit was filed.
Although aware of this , the plaintiffs consciously chose not to BCT, citing a desire to avoid . However, they still included the land in the suit schedule and obtained an order appointing a over it. BCT successfully moved to have the land deleted and the Receiver discharged through Notice of Motion No. 3479 of 2004, which was allowed on . That order attained finality after appeals and a were dismissed.
Thereafter, BCT conveyed the land to (Respondent No.72) on . The plaintiffs then filed Chamber Summons Nos. 718 of 2010 and 1089 of 2011 seeking to BCT and Atul Builders, and to have Survey No.151A restored to the suit. The rejected both applications on , leading to the present .
Arguments: Liberty to Amend vs.
The petitioners, represented by , argued that the 2008 order had granted them liberty to "adopt appropriate proceedings," and that the amendments were merely correcting an . They contended that the amendments were , did not , and that a could challenge in a . Reliance was placed on LIC vs. Sanjeev Builders (2022) and other precedents.
Respondent No.72, represented by , countered that the proposed amendments were hopelessly . The 1971 was known at the time of the suit in 1991, yet the amendments were sought only in 2010. He argued that the challenge to by an outsider (the Khot family) could not be adjudicated in a between Patil family members. Reliance was placed on Trinity Infraventures Ltd vs. M.S. Murthy (2023) and Asian Hotels (North) Ltd vs. Alok Kumar Lodha (2022).
Legal Analysis: The Court's Reasoning
The High Court first noted that the 2008 order had not merely discharged the Receiver but had also directed deletion of the land from the suit. This order had attained finality, and the plaintiffs could not re-include the land through amendment. The court observed that the plaintiffs' conscious exclusion of BCT from the original suit—as stated in para 13 of the plaint—meant that impleading BCT now would lead to an inconsistent position.
On the issue of challenging in a , the court made an important distinction. While it acknowledged that a can challenge an by a ( or another member) in a , the present case involved an by an outsider —the Khot family. The court held:
"Whether Khots had title to pass on to BCT is something which cannot be decided in a suit for partition of joint family properties of Patils."
The amendments were also found to be grossly barred by under . The court applied the principles from LIC vs. Sanjeev Builders and , noting that a claim cannot be introduced through amendment. Since the plaintiffs had knowledge of the 1971 since 1991, the 2010 amendment was too late.
Furthermore, the court held that allowing the amendments would alter the nature of the suit. A would be diverted into an inquiry into the validity of an by a third party, causing .
Key Observations: Quotes from the Judgment
The court emphasized the distinction between permissible and impermissible challenges:
"It is permissible to challengeofbyor by anothereven in a suit for partition. The challenge cannot be independent of suit for partition… only acan resolve the lis relating to validity of."
On the facts of the case:
"Here, theis not done by a, but the same is done by an outsider i.e. Khot family. Therefore, the issue ofby Khot family to BCT cannot be a subject matter of suit for partition between Patil family members."
On :
"The amendment sought to be incorporated is thus grossly barred by."
On change of nature of suit:
"It is also seen that if the amendment is allowed, the same would alter the nature of the suit. An enquiry in a suit for partition of joint family properties will get diverted into validity ofmade by Khot Family in favour of BCT."
Decision: Dismissed
The dismissed the , upholding the 's order. The court found no interference warranted. It noted that the plaintiffs had other remedies, such as seeking in the separate suit (Suit No. 8031 of 1984) filed by Defendant No.1 against BCT, and directed that the issue of in that suit could be reconsidered by the trial court after this decision.
The ruling reinforces the principle that the scope of a is limited to disputes among co-sharers, and issues involving must be pursued in .
