IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of allowing the impleading of parties for proper and effective adjudication of disputes, even if the subsequent purchaser may be bound by the final decree if the suit succeeds.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA SARKAR, J.

1. The revisional application arises out of an order dated November 15, 2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Fourth Court at Alipore, in Title Suit No. 1762 of 2018.

2. The petitioners as plaintiffs instituted a suit against the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 for a decree of declaration that the property described in Schedule-A of the plaint was the self-acquired property of the deceased mother of the plaintiffs, late Brinda Rani Dutta. Late Smt. Dutta acquired the property on the basis of the sale deed dated November 30, 1964. According to the plaint case, the said deed was executed by the defendant No. 4. The plaintiffs became absolute owner of the Schedule-A property by virtue of inheritance, after their mother’s demise.

3. A declaration was sought that the defendant No. 3 had no right, title and interest over the suit property. The plaintiffs were in possession of the property. On the strength of an alleged fraudulent deed of sale dated December 24, 2014 executed by defendant No. 4 in favour of the defendant No. 3, the defendant No. 3 claimed right, title and interest in the property in question and denied the title of the plaintiffs. The deed of sale dated December 24, 2014 was void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiffs. A prayer for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant No. 3 from taking forceful and illegal possession of the suit property on the basis of the alleged fraudulent deed was also made. Further prayer was that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, that is, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and its officials should be restrained from mutating the name of the defendant No. 3 in respect of the suit property. Mandatory injunction for deletion of the name of the defendant No. 3 from the records of the Corporation was also prayed.

4. In the said proceeding, the defendant No. 3 entered appearance and filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By order dated July 12, 2019 the learned Court rejected the said application.

5. In the written statement, the defendant No. 3 stated that by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated December 24, 2014, he had purchased 3 cottahs, 3 chittaks and 20 sq. ft. of land together with one bamboo thatched structure with tiled roof, pertaining to R.S. Dag No. 657 of Mouza Santhoshpur, Khatian No. 1001, J.L. No. 22 within the limits of Ward No. 103 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, being premises No. 1A Lake East 6th Road, Kolkata-700075. The defendant No. 3 had taken physical possession and mutated his name in the L.R. records as also in the municipal register. That the defendant No. 3 was regularly paying the corporation tax and the land revenue. The plaintiffs were land grabbers, who wanted to grab the property.

6. It is submitted by Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate for the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction with an ad interim prayer restraining the defendant No. 3 from taking forceful possession of the property on the basis of the alleged fabricated deed dated December 24, 2014 as well as for an order restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from mutating the name of the defendant No. 3 in the municipal records. As a caveat had been filed by the defendant No. 3, the prayer for ad interim injunction was heard upon notice to the said defendant and the prayer was rejected on a prima facie finding that the record did not indicate that the property purchased by the defendant No. 3 was identical with the one purchased by the mother of the plaintiff.

7. The said order was challenged before the appellate court in Misc. Appeal No. 38 of 2022. The learned District Judge, South 24-parganas at Alipore, passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the property and the said order was still subsisting. In the first week of September 2021, the plaintiffs found a notice board on the suit property indicating that a G+3 storey