SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Jhk) 2567

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
Binod Kumar Khowala - Appellant
Versus
Bhagwati Prasad Khowala - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2640 of 2018
Decided On : 24-09-2018

Advocates Appeared:
Sudarshan Srivastav, Adv., Sreenu Garapati, Adv., R.S. Mazumdar, Adv., Pratik Sen, Adv., Ajit Kumar, Adv., Prashant Pallav, Adv., Rajeev Ranjan, Adv., Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Adv., Shambhu Naht Tiwari, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of a party for effective adjudication and the court's discretion to add a party in the suit under Order-I Rule 10(2) CPC.

Headnote:

Impleadment - Title Suit - Order-I Rule 10(2) CPC - [Order-I Rule 10(2) CPC] - The court discussed the legal provisions of Order-I Rule 10(2) CPC and the principles established in the cases of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and Another and Amit Kumar Shaw & Another. vs Farida Khatoon & Another. The court emphasized the necessity of a party for effective adjudication and the philosophy behind the powers conferred upon the court to add a party in the suit.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought impleadment in Title Suit No.108 of 1998, which was instituted by Bhagwati Prasad Khowala for a decree for declaration that certain sale-deeds were illegal and for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from alienating the suit property.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's impleadment was not necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute and that his exclusion from the suit did not affect his share in the joint family property.

Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's claim for impleadment in the suit and the necessity of his presence for effective adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's impleadment was not necessary for effective adjudication and that his exclusion from the suit did not affect his share in the joint family property.

Final Decision: The writ petition for impleadment was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner, claiming himself grand-son of Devi Prasad Khowala, is aggrieved of order dated 23.02.2018 passed in Title Suit No.108 of 1998 by which his application under Order-I Rule 10(2) CPC seeking his impleadment in the suit has been rejected.

2. Briefly stated, Title Suit No. 108 of 1998, in which the petitioner seeks his impleadment, was instituted by Bhagwati Prasad Khowala for a decree for declaration that sale-deed no.2340 dated 17.08.1998 and sale-deed no.2344 dated 18.08.1998 executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of the defendant nos. 2 and 3 are illegal, void ab initio, unlawful, inoperative, fraudulent and thus not binding on the plaintiff. Another relief sought by the plaintiff is for permanent injunction against the defendants second party restraining them from alienating or encumbering the suit property and to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property during pendency of the suit.

3. The plaintiff-Bhagwati Prasad Khowala is son of Devi Prasad Khowala and the defendant no.4-Bhagwan Das Jain is the son-in-law of Devi Prasad Khowala. The petitioner is grandson of Devi Prasad Khowala. His father namely, Mahabir Prasad Khowala had four sons; the petitioner''s two brothers namely, Dinesh and Manoj are dead now. Defendant no.1 is brother-in-law of Ram Nath Khowala. The defendant no.2 is the wife of Dinesh and defendant no.3 is the wife of Manoj. The defendant no.4-Bhagwan Das Jain is the attesting witness to the aforesaid sale-deeds. Defendant nos.5 to 7 have been labelled as proforma defendants.

4. The plaintiff has pleaded that Pannalal Khowala was the common ancestor of the parties. The suit property popularly known as "Rama Niwas" is situated at Mouza- Shyamganj, District-Deoghar. It is pleaded that 1/3rd of the suit schedule property was purchased by Nripendra Mohan Sarkar on 04.06.1940 in Execution Case No. 45 of 1935 and after his death his widow-Leela Sarkar sold this property to Smt. Kamla Devi, wife of Haribux Singhania and Devi Prasad Khowala through a registered sale-deed dated 26.02.1943, however, it was Devi Prasad Khowala who has exercised his exclusive possession over the property which forms part of 1/3rd suit schedule property. The plaintiff has asserted that in respect of 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property Devi Prasad Khowala has perfected his right, title and interest to the exclusion of others and, in fact, after death of Smt. Kamla Devi her legal heirs sold her share to Devi Prasad Khowala through registered sale-deed dated 07.07.1960. In course of time the entire suit property of which Devi Prasad Khowala was the absolute owner got blended with the joint family properties. Devi Prasad Khowala died on 16.10.1983 and there was a family settlement amongst his legal heirs on 29.10.1983.

5. Further stand of the plaintiff is that in oral family arrangement Ram Nath Khowala was allotted the construction portion which was in possession of Mahabir Prasad Khowala which he agreed to hand-over to Ram Nath Khowala within two years in terms of their mutual agreement dated 22.12.1990 but with malafide intention Mahabir Prasad Khowala got Title Suit No. 31 of 1991 instituted through one Srilal Khowala, who is brother of Devi Prasad Khowala. In the said suit Mahabir Prasad Khowala and his sons have been arrayed as defendants; the petitioner is defendant no. 4 in the said suit. The property in question in Title Suit No. 108 of 1998 is comprised under schedule "C" properties of Title Suit No. 31 of 1991, which, in fact, is a suit in the nature of partition suit. It is pleaded that the defendants second party have got two sale deeds executed through Sajjan Kumar Khemka projecting him as owner of 1/3rd undivided share in the suit property known as "Rama Niwas".

6. But before that, one Ganga Narayan Mittra claiming 2/3rd interest in the suit property through conveyance deed dated 13.04.1946 instituted Partition Suit No. 31 of 1954 against Kamla Devi and Devi Da

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    Judicial Analysis

    AI

    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top