Back
1988 Supreme(Kar) 303
Karnataka High Court
Parvathamma B.N. - Appellant
Versus
B.M.Nagaraja Setty - Respondent
Decided On : 07-20-88
C.R.P. : 3289 of 1988
N.KUMAR
The necessity of amending the plaint to establish that certain sales are not binding on the plaintiffs before impleading affected parties in a partition suit, and the application of the doctrine of lis pendens in such cases.
Headnote:
Impleadment - Partition Suit - Doctrine of Lis Pendens
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a partition suit and sought to implead a purchaser of a property allegedly sold by defendant-1. The application for impleadment was rejected on the ground that the sale was prior to the filing of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that without an amendment to the plaint stating that such a sale is not binding on the plaintiffs, the purchaser does not become a necessary party in a partition suit. It further held that if the purchaser is a purchaser pendente lite, the sale would not benefit her due to the doctrine of lis pendens.
Issues: The issues revolved around the necessity of impleading a purchaser in a partition suit and the applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the properties sold to the purchaser need to be established as part of the joint family properties, and any amendment to the plaint regarding sales not binding on the plaintiffs should be carried out before affected parties are impleaded.
Final Decision: The court rejected the revision petition, stating that there was no ground for the court to interfere with the order under revision, which was deemed correct in law.
( 1 ) THIS revision is by the plaintiffs. They have filed 0 S. No. 136/1982 in the court of the Civil Judge at Madikeri, claiming partition of suit schedule properties between themselves and defendant-1. They presented I. A. No. XVII under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C. P. C. to implead one Chandramma who is said to be purchaser of a property allegedly sold by defendant-1 who is none other than the husband of plaintiff-1 and father of plaintiffs 2 to 5. That application has come to be rejected on the ground that the sale was prior to the filing of the suit.
( 2 ) WITHOUT an amendment to the plaint that such a sale is not binding on the plaintiffs, the purchaser does not become a necessary party in a partition suit. it is also further held that if the said Chandramma is a purchaser pendente lite then that sale would not enure to her benefit on account of the doctrine of lis pendens. Looked at in any way she is not a necessary party. Whether the properties sold to Chandramma are part of the joint family properties is a question of fact to be established, if it is disputed. If there is no amendment to the plaint in regard to certain sales not binding on the plaintiffs then that amendment should be carried out first before the affected parties are impleaded.
( 3 ) IN that view of the matter, there is no ground for this Court to interfere with the order under revision which is correct in law. This revision petition is rejected.
--- *** ---
.
