Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 1700
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Prabhu Dayal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1645 of 1998
Decided On : 06-05-2022
Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shashank R. Joshi, for the Appellant
Mr. A.K Rajvanshy, Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, for the Respondent.
The interest of justice and avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings are key considerations in determining impleadment in a partition suit.
Headnote:
Partition Suit - Impleadment - - - The court discussed the impleadment of the petitioner as a party respondent in the partition suit preferred by Bhagwana Ram. The court quashed the revisional order and allowed the impleadment to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to protect the rights and interests of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
A suit for partition was filed by Bhagwana Ram against Chet Ram for the partition of certain land. The petitioner, Prabhu Dayal, sought to be impleaded as a party respondent in the suit based on properties given to him in a will executed by Chet Ram.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that impleading the petitioner as a party respondent in the partition suit would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and would not prejudice the case of the plaintiff, Bhagwana Ram.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be impleaded as a party respondent in the partition suit and whether the scope of the suit should be allowed to be enhanced.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the interest of justice would be met by allowing the impleadment of the petitioner to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to protect the rights and interests of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court quashed the revisional order and allowed the impleadment of the petitioner as a party respondent in the partition suit preferred by Bhagwana Ram.
ORDER
1. Although, the case is listed in the orders category but with the consent of counsel for the parties, the case is heard finally and decided today itself.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 07.04.1998 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer whereby the revision petition filed by the legal representatives of Bhagwana Ram has been allowed and the order dated 30.01.1994 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh has been quashed and set aside to the extent of impleading the petitioner as respondent/defendant in the suit.
4. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that a suit for partition was filed by Bhagwana Ram against Chet Ram in the year 1987 for partition of the land situated at Khasra No. 145, 146, 183, 184, 174, 171 & 180. In the year 1992, Chet Ram passed away and legal representatives of Chetram, namely, widow Sua Devi & adopted son Kishan Lal were brought on record.
5. Chetram executed a will on 20.09.1991 in favour of the petitioner which was registered before the Sub-registrar. According to that will, certain pieces of land of Khasra No. 145 & 171 were stated to be given to the petitioner. On the strength of the will executed in favour of the petitioner, the revenue entries of the land were made.
6. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred an application for being impleaded as party respondent in the suit preferred by Bhagwana Ram. The application preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 31.01.1994. This order of 31.01.1994 was assailed by Bhagwana Ram by way of filing a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. However, during the pendency of revision petition before learned Board of Revenue, Bhagwana Ram died and his legal heirs were taken on record. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 07.04.1998 allowed the revision petition filed by Bhagwana Ram setting aside the order dated 30.01.1994 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh to the extent of impleading the petitioner as party respondent to the suit filed by Bhagwana Ram. Thus, this writ petition has been filed by petitioner Prabhu Dayal on the strength that the land which is subject matter of the suit for partition preferred by Bhagwana Ram has been mutated in the name of petitioner and any order passed in partition suit will affect the rights of petitioner. Since, the will executed by Chetram in favour of petitioner Prabhu Dayal has not been questioned so far and, therefore, the petitioner is in possession of the lands mentioned above in the preceding paras on the strength of will executed by Chetram in his favour. Therefore, he is a necessary party in the suit proceedings.
7. Learned senior counsel has very categorically stated that since the suit for partition was filed by Bhagwana Ram, therefore, there is no question of agitating or questioning veracity of the will in the present case. He, therefore, prays that the revisional order passed by learned Board of Revenue may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be impleaded as party respondent in the suit for partition preferred by Bhagawana Ram to protect the rights and interest of the petitioner, if any.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the proceedings pending before the trial court are for the partition of the properties between plaintiff Bhagwana Ram and defendant Chetram. If the petitioner is allowed to be impleaded as party respondent in the suit, the scope of suit will increase and the same will unnecessarily delay the suit proceedings. He submits that scope of partition suit should not be allowed to be enhanced and no discussions/ deliberations with respect to the will executed in favour of the petitioner should be allowed to be made before the trial court in the suit proceedings.
9. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the relevant record of
