A person who has instituted a suit for declaration of title to a property is not entitled to be impleaded in a partition suit involving the same property, as the decree in the partition suit will not bind him if he succeeds in the declaration suit.

Headnote:
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the order of the trial court dismissing his application to implead himself in a partition suit (O.S.No.55/2022). The petitioner claimed exclusive title to the property in question and had filed a separate suit for declaration of title (O.S.No.46/2004), which was pending in appeal before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the petitioner's presence was not necessary in the partition suit as he had already instituted a suit for declaration of title and the decree in the partition suit would not bind him if he succeeded in the appeal in the declaration suit.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, who claimed exclusive title to the property in question and had filed a separate suit for declaration of title, was entitled to be impleaded in a partition suit involving the same property.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the petitioner's presence was not necessary in the partition suit as he had already instituted a suit for declaration of title and the decree in the partition suit would not bind him if he succeeded in the appeal in the declaration suit.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition.

ORDER

Dated this the 25st day of March, 2024 This C.R.P has been filed challenging the order in I.A.No.2/2023 in O.S.No.55/2022 on the files of the Sub Court, Vatakara (for short 'the trial court').

2. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs and defendants in O.S.No.55/2022 pending before the trial court. The said suit is one for partition of the plaint schedule property shown therein. The petitioner claimed that the entire plaint schedule property in O.S.No.55/2022 exclusively belongs to him and that none of the respondents herein have any right over the same. He instituted O.S.No.46/2004 before the trial court for a declaration of his title to the plaint schedule property. Though he succeeded in the trial court, the first appellate court reversed the decree. It is submitted that the second appeal filed by the petitioner against the decree and judgment of the first appellate court is pending before this Court.

3. The petitioner filed I.A.No.2/2023 to get himself impleaded in O.S.No.55/2022. The trial court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the said petition as per the impugned order. It is challenging the said order, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

4. I have heard Sri. R. Parthasarathy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. M. Narendra Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. O.S.No.55/2022 is a suit for partition simplicitor to partition the plaint schedule property situated therein. The petitioner herein claims exclusive independent title over the property involved in the said suit. He has also instituted a suit for declaration, to declare his title over the said property. Now the second appeal against the decree passed in the said suit is pending before this Court. Since the petitioner has already instituted such a suit and suffered a decree, his presence is not necessary to adjudicate the issue involved in O.S.No.55/2022. Needless to say, if ultimately, the petitioner succeeds in the second appeal pending before this Court, none of the respondents will have any right over the property in question. Since the petitioner is not a party to O.S.No.55/2022, the decree, if any, passed in the said suit will not bind on him.

With these observations, this C.R.P is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document