Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1280

PATNA HIGH COURT
MR. ARUN KUMAR JHA, J
Meena Devi – Appellant
Versus
Kailash Devi – Respondent
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.185 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, Advocate, Ms. Pratibha Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent 2:Mr. Anupam Prabhat Shrivastava, Advocate
For the Respondents 1,5 to 10, 13 & 14:Mr. Ram Anuj Prasad Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate

A subsequent purchaser cannot intervene in existing partition proceedings if transfer doesn't comply with prior court orders, maintaining the judiciary's discretion in determining parties in litigation.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure - Order 1 Rule 10 (2) - Petition challenging order rejecting application for impleadment in execution proceedings - Claim of petitioner based on purchase of land under joint family property partition - Court holds that petitioner, as a subsequent purchaser, has no right to intervene - Deliveries of possession have already been executed as per Supreme Court decree - Claim dismissed as no jurisdictional error found by the lower court. (Paras 1, 12, 34, 36)

(B) Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC - Judicial discretion to add necessary parties - Third party cannot insist on being added as a party in litigation if their rights are not established. (Paras 29, 30, 31)

(C) Lis Pendens - Subsequent transfer of property under litigation does not confer rights on the buyer when not compliant with prior court orders. (Paras 32, 34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 227 challenging a lower court's order dismissing her application to be added as a party in an ongoing partition case involving the family properties of her vendor. She contended her vendor had rightful ownership per a Supreme Court order but faced opposition based on established possession and rights under prior judicature.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded the petitioner had no legal standing or interest to intervene in the ongoing litigation, as possession had already been appropriated to the parties based on the Supreme Court’s prior directives.

Issues: The court examined whether the petitioner, as a subsequent purchaser, had the right to be added to the legal proceedings concerning property already partitioned.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court’s modification of property rights established that subsequent transfers do not confer property rights when such transfers are made during ongoing litigation, and the lower court had acted within its jurisdiction.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of the land purchase and litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. purchase and right to seek impleadment. (Para 5 , 8)
3. legal principles regarding impleadment in ongoing cases. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. opposition to the petitioner's claims. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
5. legal validity of petitioner's standing. (Para 22 , 23)
6. court's analysis of the evidentiary and legal aspects. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
7. conclusions on the petitioner's rights. (Para 32 , 33)
8. final decision and dismissal of the case. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT

Date : 06-05-2025

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.12.2022 passed in Misc. Case No. 227/1996 by learned Additional District Judge-XIV, Patna whereby and whereunder the petition of the intervener/petitioner dated 30.07.2010 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) has been rejected along with another petition filed by some other persons under Section 151 of the Code.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that she had purchased the land bearing Khata No. 145, Khesra No. 3205 area 4275 sq.ft. (3 decimals), Khata No. 763, Khesra No. 3206 area 5 decimals and Khata No. 145, Khesra No. 3207 area 6 decimals on 16.10.2008 from one Krishna Dutta, son of Late Shiv Lal Sao vide a registered sale deed. The petitioner came to know about Misc. Case No. 227/1996 between Bhagwat Prasad and Krishna Dutta, which has been going on with regard to partition of joint family property in the light of judgment/order dated 10.10.1996 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7475/1994 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court modified the decree passed by the High Court with certain directions. The land in question purchased by the petitioner fell in share of Krishna Dutta being part of Schedule II property of Partition Award and the nature of land is ‘ditch’. The petitioner claims as per schedule of Partition Award and direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the land came in possession and ownership of Krishna Dutta and the petitioner purchased the same after payment of consideration amount and came into possession of said land. After coming to know about the pendency of Misc. Case No. 227/1996, the petitioner filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code for adding her as party in Misc. Case No. 227/1996. A rejoinder to the petition was filed on behalf of the respondents opposing the prayer of the petitioner. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the petition dated 30.07.2010 finding no merit in it vide order dated 12.12.2022. The said order is under challenge before this Court.

3. Prior to entering into the submission of the parties, it would be beneficial to take stock of chronology of the events leading to institution of Misc. Case No. 227/1996.

4. It appears from the records that there was dispute over partition of joint family property amongs the sons of Late Benga Sao, namely Bhagwat Prasad and Krishna Dutta. With the intervention of well wishers of the family, the matter was referred to arbitration and, accordingly, the arbitrators (Panchas) delivered the award on 26.06.1970 and the same was registered on 04.08.1970. Thereafter, Bhagwat Prasad and Sri Thakur Satyadeo Swami Jee Maharaj under the Sewait Bhagwat Prasad filed Title Suit No. 54 of 1977/58 of 1978 in the court of learned Sub Judge-2nd, Patna to make the registered award rule of the court and Bhagwat Prasad got ex-parte decree dated 25.07.1978. Krishna Dutta filed Misc. Case No. 71/1979 for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 25.07.1978, which was subsequently set aside vide order dated 13.12.1980 and Title Suit No. 54 of 1977/58 of 1978 was restored. Thereafter, vendor of the petitioner, namely Krishna Dutta filed Misc. Case No. 383 of 1986 in the High Court against the judgment of learned trial court ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1280

PATNA HIGH COURTMR. ARUN KUMAR JHA, JMeena Devi – AppellantVersusKailash Devi – RespondentCIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.185 of 2023

A subsequent purchaser cannot intervene in existing partition proceedings if transfer doesn't comply with prior court orders, maintaining the judiciary's discretion in determining parties in litigation.

Cases Referred (5)

PATNA HIGH COURT
MR. ARUN KUMAR JHA, J
Meena Devi – Appellant
Versus
Kailash Devi – Respondent
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.185 of 2023