Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1142
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
Sellamuthu – Appellant
Versus
Tamilarasi & Others – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition(PD) No. 3867 of 2007 & M.P. No. 1 of 2007
Decided on : 25-04-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Saravanan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:N. Manoharan, Advocate.
A purchaser pendente lite is bound by the preliminary decree and final decree of the suit, and transfer pendente lite is non-est in the eye of the law.
Headnote:
Impleadment - Civil Procedure Code - Order 1, Rule 10(2) - S.52 of Transfer of Property Act - [Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC, S.52 of Transfer of Property Act] - The court discussed the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It emphasized that a purchaser pendente lite is bound by the preliminary decree and final decree of the suit, and transfer pendente lite is non-est in the eye of the law. The court also highlighted the legal principle that there is no necessity to implead a purchaser pendente lite as a party in the final decree proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to be impleaded as respondent No.11 in a suit for partition and separate possession. The petitioner claimed to have purchased a share in the suit property and alleged that he came to know about the suit proceedings only when the Advocate Commissioner visited the property for division.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim of having no knowledge of the suit proceedings until a later date was not acceptable. It held that the petitioner's purchase of the property during the pendency of the suit made him a purchaser pendente lite, and therefore, there was no necessity to implead him as a party in the final decree proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial Court was right in dismissing the petition to implead the petitioner in the final decree application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that a purchaser pendente lite is bound by the preliminary decree and final decree of the suit, and transfer pendente lite is non-est in the eye of the law. It emphasized that there is no necessity to implead a purchaser pendente lite as a party in the final decree proceedings.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the order of the trial Court was confirmed. The trial Court was directed to complete the final decree proceedings within a period of two months.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 22.03.2007 passed in I.A.No.138 of 2007 in I.A.No.713 of 2005 in O.S.No.146 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangayam, dismissing the petition filed under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC seeking to implead the petitioner herein as respondent No.11 in I.A.No.713 of 2005. The petitioner is a third party to the suit proceedings.
2. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.138 of 2007 under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC to implead him as respondent No.11 in I.A.No.713 of 2005 alleging that the suit property commonly belonged to Karuppa Gounder s sons Sennimalai Gounder and Veerappa Gounder. The first defendant Komarasami Gounder and Palanisami Gounder are the legal heirs of Sennimalai Gounder and third defendant Komarasami Gounder and the sixth defendant Ramasami Gounder are the legal heirs of Veerappa Gounder. Defendants 7 and 8 are the sons of 6th defendant. It is alleged that Palanisami Gounder had two wives. Subbarayan and Samiathal were born through first wife and the second wife has no issue. Sennimalai Gounder bequeathed his share in the suit properties to his grand-son Subbarayan through a Will registered as Document No.21 of 1950. Subbarayan sold properties in S.No.47/1 and 62/A measuring an extent of 84= cents with common 1/6th share in the common well and electric motor pumpset to the petitioner and defendants 5 and 7 through a sale deed on 14.08.1987. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to 1/3rd share in the purchased property and defendants 5 and 7 each are entitled 1/3rd share.
3. The case of the petitioner is that on 06.01.2007, when the Advocate Commissioner visited the suit properties for division of the same, he came to know about the filing of the suit, preliminary decree for partition passed and also filing of the final decree application by the first respondent. Immediately, the petitioner engaged an Advocate and verified the Court records and he was advised to file petition to implead himself as the 11th respondent in the final decree application (I.A.No.713 of 2005). Hence, the petitioner seeks to implead him as 11th respondent in I.A.No.713 of 2005.
4. Resisting the petition, the first respondent/plaintiff filed the counter stating that the petitioner is the son-in-law of the second defendant and he got knowledge of the suit and the proceedings from the beginning. This petition has been filed because of inducement of the second defendant after a period of 20 years with an intention to obstruct the finality of the suit and prevent the first respondent from enjoying the fruits of the decree. According to the first respondent, the sale deed dated 14.08.1987 referred to by the petitioner is a forged one and the same cannot be relied upon. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition.
5. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the learned trial Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision.
6. I heard Mr.S.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. Perused the materials available on record.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court failed to follow the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that purchaser pendent lite is entitled to be impleaded as party to the proceedings, if his interest in the subject matter is substantial. He argued that since the petitioner has substantial right in S.Nos.47/1 and 62/A, he is necessary party to the suit proceedings. He would submit that the trial Court went wrong in not exercising its discretion by allowing the application to implead the petitioner. Finally, the learned counsel argued that the trial Court went wrong in holding that the purchase by the petitioner is non-est. In support of his contention, the learned counsel cited decisions in Khemchand Shankar Choudhari and another v. Vishnu Hari Patil and others, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 10
