Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.
Sri Vinayak – Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Gadigevva @ Neelavva & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.106032 of 2022 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 03-08-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition to amend plaint in partition suit. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. stranger-purchaser lacks standing in proceedings. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. order upheld based on legal precedents. (Para 5) |
| 4. petition dismissed. (Para 6) |
ORDER :
(Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.)
The captioned writ petition is filed by defendant No.4-purchaser assailing the order of the Courts below, wherein plaintiffs application seeking amendment of plaint to include the left out properties as indicated by defendants is allowed and plaintiffs are permitted to include the other properties. The said order is challenged by a purchaser.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.4 and respondents.
3. Admittedly, the suit is one for partition and separate possession. The defendants have taken a stand that the plaintiffs have not included all the properties and therefore, suit for partial partition is not maintainable. In the light of the defence set-up by defendants, plaintiffs by way of amendment have sought leave of the Court to include all the properties.
4. It is quite strange to know that petitioner who is purchaser of undivided interest who has no locus in a partition suit has ventured in challenging the order passed on amendment application. While drawing a preliminary decree, a stranger-purchaser has no say in the suit. Merely because, he is impleaded in the suit, will not give a right to him to dictate as to how the suit has to be proceeded with. His rights, if any, in an undivided interest has to be worked out in final decree proceedings.
5. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on two grounds. Firstly, the order under challenge is in accordance with law. Secondly, the petitioner being a stranger-purchaser could not have knocked the door of this Court. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of Sri H.K. Manjunath Vs Sri Ramesh Kumar in W.P.No.21717/2021(GM-CPC), decided on 06.04.2022, is not applicable to the present case on hand.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
A purchaser of undivided interest lacks locus standi in preliminary decree proceedings of a partition suit; rights must be asserted in final decree proceedings.
Order 6 Rule 17 proviso restricting post-trial plaint amendment applies to plaintiffs, not defendants in partition suits to prevent multiplicity.
Point of law : Suit for partition - In the absence of any details given by the respondents/defendants, and subsequent purchasers may be proper parties and their presence is required only at the time ....
A party claiming possession based on an unregistered agreement to sell cannot intervene in a partition suit.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 should be allowed if they assist in resolving the real issues without altering the fundamental nature of the suit or causing prejudice to the opposing p....
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 should be allowed if they assist in resolving the real issues without altering the fundamental nature of the suit, ensuring all necessary parties are in....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
