Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Sunita Devi, wife of Ramprawesh Chouhan – Appellant
Versus
Satya Devi @ Gunni Devi, wife of Sri Antu Sao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 and opposite party No.5 is said to be proforma opposite party.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 29.06.2024 passed by learned Sub Judge-II-cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Ranchi in M.C.A. Case No.227 of 2024 arising out of M.C.A. No.850 of 2019 in Original Partition Suit No.193 of 2013 whereby the petition filed under provision of Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 12 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioners for impleading has been rejected by the learned Court.
3. Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that one Ramlakhan Sahu had transferred the properties which subsequently transpired that is part of the said property in Original Partition Suit No.193 of 2013. The properties purchased by the petitioners herein from said Ram Lakhan Sahu relates to 7.5 decimal of Plot No.175 under Khata No.129 at Mauja Bukru, P.S. No.54, P.S. – Kanke, District – Ranchi through registered sale deed vide Deed No
Purchasers of property in a partition suit may seek impleadment to assert equity; Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act permits their inclusion in ongoing litigation for effective adjudication.
The court ruled that transferees pendente lite are necessary parties in a partition suit for effective adjudication, subject to the outcome of the suit.
The court emphasized that a transfer pending litigation is not void but subservient to the ongoing suit, affirming judicial discretion to allow impleadment to protect bona fide purchasers' rights.
A transferee pendente lite is entitled to be impleaded in a suit to protect their interest, and the trial court erred in dismissing the application for impleadment.
A pendente lite purchaser can be added as a party to ongoing litigation to protect substantial interests, and such applications should typically be granted without prejudice.
The right to intervene in ongoing execution proceedings is denied if the petitioner has no established interest in the property and the rights of prior parties have been conclusively determined.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which renders any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit void. The co....
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
