Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(CAL) 4599
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Shampa Sarkar, J
Gita Rani Nanda – Appellant
Versus
Debasish Das – Respondent
CO 3136 of 2022 | CAN 1 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tanmoy Mukherjee, Bibekananda Tripathy
For the Respondents: Sibasis Ghosh, Kalipada Chakraborty, Dwarika Nath Mukherjee
In land disputes, all potential claimants must be included for effective adjudication to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, Order 1 Rule 10 - Application for addition of parties - Application allowed as the mistake of not including necessary defendants was bona fide and for proper adjudication of the suit comprising land claims. (Paras 2, 6, 8)
(B) Plaintiff’s challenge to added parties’ claim - Court addressed objections stating that claims related to same property necessitate inclusion of all potential claimants to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. (Paras 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed rights over undivided land portions based on a gift deed, contested by the plaintiff who denied the validity of the deed, stating it was collusive and void.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that adding the petitioner was prudent for effective adjudication, despite objections from the plaintiff regarding the alleged fraudulent deed. Inclusion of the petitioner was deemed necessary for resolving claims related to the disputed land.
Issues: The main issues revolved around whether the petitioner should be added given claims to the same property and allegations of a fraudulent conveyance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that valid inclusion of all parties claiming rights to contested property is essential for resolving disputes effectively and preventing duplicative lawsuits.
Result: The revisional application is allowed and disposed of.
Re: CAN 1 of 2023 As the original copy of the application CAN 1 of 2023 cannot be traced in view of the change in determination of the courts, Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the petitioner, is allowed to supply a photocopy of the said application. The same is taken on record upon consent of the parties and treated to be a true copy of the original application.
Office is directed to track the original copy of the application and tag the same, with the file.
CAN 1 of 2023 is an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adding the defendant nos.2 to 20, in the revisional application being C.O. 3136 of 2022, who, according 2 to the learned advocate for the petitioner, were left out by mistake from the array of opposite parties.
The mistake is bona fide and not intentional.
The petitioner does not stand to benefit, by leaving out those defendants. This court is of the view that such application must be allowed.
In view of the disposal of the application, the opposite party/defendant nos.2 to 20 be added in the array of the opposite parties as stated in paragraph 3 of the application.
CAN 1 of 2023 is thus disposed of.
Re: CO 3136 of 2022 As the added opposite parties have already been served and affidavit of service has been filed, the revisional application is taken up for hearing. It is also a matter of record that apart from defendant Nos.1, 5, 10 and 20, none of the defendants contested the suit. Moreover, an objection to the application for addition of party was only filed by the plaintiff. Hence, the matter is taken up and disposed of in the presence of the plaintiff.
This revisional application has been filed challenging the Order No.55 dated July 18, 2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Contai, 1st Court, Purba Medinipur in Title Suit No.183 of 2014.
3 By the order impugned, the learned court below rejected the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner.
The petitioner sought to be added as a party on the ground that parts of the land in respect of which the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration and injunction and alternatively for partition and declaration of his share, had been settled in favour of many persons including the petitioner. The petitioner herself had acquired the right, title and interest in respect of a portion of the alleged undivided plot no.102/402, corresponding to J.L. No.89, Mouza-
Zafarchak, Touzi No.2935, P.S.-Khejuri, District-Purba Medinipur, by virtue of deed of gift executed sometime in 2016, by one Ananta Kumar Nanda. It has been specifically stated that Ananta Kumar Nanda acquired right, title and interest in the said portion of the undivided plot of land by virtue of a deed of sale, executed between Purnendu Mandal and Ananta Kumar Nanda, sometime in 2014.
The plaintiff objected to such application and submitted that the petitioner did not acquire any right, title and interest in the alleged plot. The deed of gift, if at all executed, was collusive, illegal and void and a mere paper transaction, which was never acted upon. Based on such paper transaction and 4 void document, the petitioner could not be added as a party to the suit.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that the prayers would reflect that the petitioner had claimed 57 decimals out of the entire plot no.102/402, J.L. No.89, Mouza-
Zafarchak, Touzi No.2935, P.S.-Khejuri, District-Purba Medinipur. Prayers have been made for a declaration of right, title and interes
