Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Easwaran S., J
Nadheera – Appellant
Versus
Chandran Nair – Respondent
OP(C) No. 1487 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Deepa Narayanan
For the Respondents: C. Dilip, Meena A., Vinod Ravindranath, M. R. Mini, Ashwin Sathyanath, Rohit Nandakumar, M. Devesh
A party claiming an interest in the subject matter of a partition suit, specifically regarding whether a portion of the property is partible or dedicated, is a necessary party to the proceedings to prevent multiplicity of litigations and to ensure all claims are adjudicated comprehensively.
Headnote:The case involves a dispute regarding the impleadment of a third party in a long-pending partition suit. The primary legal issue concerns the necessity of impleading a party claiming interest in the schedule property to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The court determined that considering the claim of partial dedication of property to a religious entity, the proposed defendant is a necessary party to ensure a comprehensive resolution and avoid future litigation through independent proceedings. The core issues framed were whether the proposed party was either a 'necessary' or 'proper' party and whether the lack of detailed title devolution in the impleading application warranted its rejection. The court held that the determination of true ownership and the claim of property dedication should be decided during the trial rather than at the stage of impleadment, justifying the inclusion of the party to reach a final adjudication on the partibility of the property. The original petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the suit within six months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the partition suit dispute regarding impleadment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments concerning the criteria for necessary and proper parties in civil partition suits. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. judicial reasoning on avoiding multiplicity of suits by allowing necessary party joinder. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
A suit instituted for partition has not attained finality for nearly 15 years because of a dispute as to whether the 2nd respondent is a necessary party to the proceedings or not.
2. The petitioner filed a suit for partition against the 1st respondent herein claiming division of shares. Title to the plaint schedule property is traced to Ext. P2 sale deed in the year 2008. While the suit was pending, Ext. P4 application for impleading was filed by the 2nd respondent herein stating that the 32 cents out of the plaint schedule property was dedicated in favour of a temple and, therefore, the said extent is not partible. The plaintiff resisted the application by filing an objection stating that there is no details as regards the flow of title in favour of the person sought to be impleaded is stated in the application.
2.1. According to the plaintiff, the dispute in the suit is whether the plaint schedule property is partible or not and, therefore, the request for impleadment of the additional 2nd defendant cannot be accepted. The Trial Court took up the application after a lapse of 7 years after its inception and then formed the opinion that the substitution or addition of parties must be necessary for the purpose of determining the real dispute in the matter. According to the Trial Court, the availability of the property to be partitioned is an issue to be considered and accordingly felt that the 3rd party should be impleaded and ordered the application in favour of the 2nd respondent.
Against the said order, this present original petition is filed.
3. Heard Smt. Deepa Narayanan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. C. Dilip, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent and Smt.
M. R. Mini, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
4. Smt. Deepa Narayanan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application for impleadment is bereft of the required details as regards the flow of title and, therefore, the Court below could not have allowed the application. In support of her contention, relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others [1992 (2) SCC 524] and also in New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumkum Mittal and Others [(1994) 1 SCC 402]. She further submitted that the Advocate Commissioner who had inspected the property could not find the existence of a temple. She further pointed out that the property was transferred to 3rd parties and in 2008, the property was purchased by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein and, therefore, it was lying in common. Since the 2nd respondent herein does not claim any joint ownership in the property nor they have claimed any share in the property, they cannot be considered as a necessary party to the suit. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, 2nd respondent is neither a proper party nor a necessary party.
5. Sri. C. Dilip, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent supported the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the dispute in the suit is essentially between the petitioner and the 1st respondent and that the 2nd respondent has no locus standi to intervene in the proceedings.
6. Per contra, Smt. M. R. Mini, the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent supported the findings in the impugned order and submitted that the essential dispute to be decided is whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of the entire extend of plaint schedule property. According to her, the question regarding the entitlement of the 2nd defendant to claim a portion of the plaint schedule property will arise only after his impleadm
