Back
2001 (1) JLJ 202
Dipak Misra, J.
Urmila Patel (Smt.) and another v. Smt. Laxmibai and others
Civil Revn. No. 582 of 1994: against the order of Additional Judge to the
Court of District Judge, Narsinghpur, passed in Civil Appeal No. 4-A of 1989.
Decided on 20.6.2000.
(2) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S. 52 -- transferee pendente lite -- will be bound by the proceedings in the suit -- he is representative of his seller. AIR 1983 SC 124 followed. [Para 4
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 22 R. 10 -- transferee pendente lite -- his right to be impleaded in lis is clearly recognised under -- if he applies he should be impleaded and heard -- his position is similar to that of an heir. etc.
Rule 10 of Order 22 of the Civil P.C. clearly recognises the right of a transferee to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings and to be heard before any order is made. It may be that if he does not apply to be impleaded, he may suffer by default on account of any order passed in the proceeding. AIR 1983 SC 124 followed. [Para 4
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 1 Rr. 10 and 9 -- question of addition of necessary party -- judicial discretion to he exercised to order impleadment -- plaintiff though dominus litis should be directed to implead.
In the matter of addition of necessary parties, the Court has the judicial discretion which it has to exercise looking at the facts and circumstances of the case. In exercise of its discretion, the Court can direct the plaintiff though dominus litis to implead the person as a necessary party. (1992) 2 SCC 524 followed. [Para 4
(5) Civil P.C, 1908 -- O. 1. R. 10 -- intervenor having cause of action against plaintiff -- Court has power to join him to avoid multiplicity of action. (1992) 2 SCC 524 followed. [Paras 4 & 6
(6) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 1 R. 10 -- addition of parties -- question is not of initial jurisdiction but of judicial discretion of Court. AIR 1958 SC 886 followed. [Para 4
(7) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 1 R. 10 -- property suit -- person to be added as party should have direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest in subject matter of litigation. AIR 1958 SC 886 followed. [Para 4
(8) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 22 R. 10 and O. 1 R. 10 -- purchasers during pendency of suit are necessary party -- their bonafide or commission of breach in contempt of injunction can be decided in their presence. (1995) 6 SCC 50 distinguished. AIR 1999 SC 976 followed. [Para 5
¼1½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 22 fu- 10 && vihy ds yacu ds nkSjku varfjrh && lE;d~ rRijrkiwoZd i{kdkj ds :i esa la;kstu ds fy, vk;k && okn esa la;kstu vuqKkr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A 1996 ts ,y ts 32 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 4
¼2½ laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 && /kkjk 52 && okn ds yacu ds nkSjku varfjrh && okn dh dk;Zokgh }kjk vkc) gksxk && og vius foØsrk dk izfrfuf/k gSA , vkb vkj 1983 ,l lh 124 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 4
¼3½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 22 fu- 10 && okn ds yacu ds nkSjku varfjrh && ckn esa la;ksftr fd, tkus dk mldk vf/kdkj Li"Vr% ekU; gS && ;fn og vkosnu djs rc mls la;ksftr dj mldh lquokbZ dh tkuk pkfg, && mldh fLFkfr okfjl vkfn ds leku gSA
flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds vkns‘k 22 ds fu;e 10 esa dk;Zokgh ds i{kdkj ds :i esa la;ksftr fd, tkus rFkk dksbZ Hkh vkns‘k fd, tkus ls iwoZ lqus tkus dk varfjrh dk vf/kdkj Li"Vr% ekU; fd;k x;k gSA ,slk gks ldrk gS fd ;fn og la;kstu ds fy, vkosnu ugha djs rc dk;Zokgh esa ikfjr fdlh vkns‘k ds dkj.k mls O;frØe ds dkj.k gkfu mBkuk iM+sA , vkb vkj 1983 ,l lh 124 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 4
¼4½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 1 fu- 10 rFkk 9 && vko‘;d i{kdkj ds la;kstu dk iz‘u && la;kstu vkfn"V djus ds fy, U;kf;d foosd iz;qDr fd;k tkuk gksxk && oknh ;|fi okn laj{kd gS rFkkfi mls la;kstu djus dk funs‘k fd;k tkuk pkfg,A
vko‘;d i{kdkjksa ds la;kstu ds fo"k; esa U;k;ky; dks u;kf;d foosdkf/kdkj gS ftldk mlds }kjk iz;ksx] ekeys ds rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, fd;k tkuk pkfg,A vius foosdkf/kdkj ds iz;ksx esa U;k;ky; }kjk oknh dks ;|fi og okn laj{kd gS] fdlh O;fDr dks vko‘;d i{kdkj ds :i esa la;ksftr djus dk funs‘k fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼1992½ 2 ,l lh lh 524 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 4
¼5½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 1 fu- 10 && e/;{ksid ds ikl oknh ds fo:) okn gsrqd && dkjZokbZ ds ckgqY; ls cpus ds fy, U;k;ky; dks mls la;ksftr djus dh ‘kfDr gSA ¼1992½ 2 ,l lh lh 524 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 4 ,oa 6
¼6½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 1 fu- 10 && laifÙk dk okn && iz‘u izkjafHkd vf/kdkfjrk dk ugha vfirq U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d foosdkf/kdkj dk gSA , vkb vkj 1958 ,l lh 886 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 4
¼7½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 1 fu- 10 && laifÙk dk okn && i{kdkj ds :i esa la;ksftr fd, tkus okys O;fDr dk eqdnes dh fo"k;oLrq esa && okf.kfT;d fgr ls izHksfnr lh/kk fgr gksuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1958 ,l lh 886 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 4
¼8½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 22 fu- 10 rFkk vk- 1 fu- 10 && okn ds yacu ds nkSjku Øsrkx.k vko‘;d i{kdkj gSa && mudk ln~Hkko vFkok voeku djrs gq, O;kns‘k dk Hkax mudh mifLFkfr esa fofuf‘pr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼1995½ 6 ,l lh lh 50 izHksfnrA , vkb vkj 1999 ,l lh 976 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 5
1. Invoking the civi1 revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the petitioners have called in question the propriety of the order dated 23.6.1994 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4A/89 by the learned Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur.
2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the respondent No. 1, Laxmibai purchased a plot in the year 1942 at Village Kandeli in the name of her minor son Jagdish Sharan by a registered sale-deed. At the time of execution of this sale-deed Jagdish Sharan was only 13 years of age. In 1947 Smt. Laxmibai constructed rooms over the said plot. In the year 1950 Jagdish Sharan became major and was married to Smt. Siyarani. Jagdish Sharan expired in the year 1950 itself. Smt. Siyarani deserted the house of her in-laws and on 16.8.1956 Smt. Laxmibai sold the house in question to the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and delivered them the possession of the same. In the year 1976 Smt. Siyarani appeared and in collusion with Smt. Laxmibai filed a suit for declaration that the sale-deed executed on 16.8.1956 was without consideration and was obtained by playing a fraud upon her. In Civil Suit No. 144-A/82 the respondents No. 3 to 5 herein, averred that the sale-deed was valid one and the property in question belonged to Smt. Laxmibai who had purchased it in the name of her minor son Jagdish Sharan.
3. The learned trial Judge considering the facts in entirety dismissed the suit. After the dismissal of the suit Laxmibai and Smt. Siyarani preferred a Civil Appeal No. 4-A/89 which is pending in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur for adjudication. During the pendency of the appeal the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 sold the instant suit property by two separate sale-deeds dated 24.5.1990 to the petitioners and also put them in physical possession of the property. The applicants thereafter filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code praying that they be impleaded as parties to the appeal. The application was rejected by the lower appellate Court on the ground that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and it was open to her to implead the parties and the Court cannot compel to implead someone whom she did not want to implead. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present civil revision has been preferred.
4. I have heard Mr. T.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Ruprah has submitted that there was no order of injunction to alienate the property and the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers of the property and they have to defend their action and, therefore, they should be impleaded as parties otherwise it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. To buttress his submission he has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Devisahai Premraj Mahajan v. Govindrao Balwantrao and others, 1966 JLJ 32 = AIR 1965 MP 275 wherein it has been held as under:
"There is no bar of the transferee pendente lile being impleaded as a party under O. 22. R. 10 at the appellate stage. However, the question will be one of due diligence. But if he is guilty of unreasonable delay and waits and watches the proceedings without making an attempt to be impleaded, and later on files an application at a very late stage, unless he explains the delay or shows some justifiable reason for having remained silent, his prayer to be impleaded at a late stage can evidently not be allowed." (Quoted from the placitum).
In the case of Khemchand Shankar Choudhary and another v. Vishnu Hari Patil and others. AIR 1983 SC 124 the Apex Court held as under:
"6. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act no doubt lays down that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in an immovable property which is the subject-matter of a suit from any of the parties to the suit will be bound in so far as that interest is concerned by the proceedings in the suit. Such a transferee is a representative in interest of party from whom he has ac
SupremeToday
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
