Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 170 (JHR)

Motijhari Devi v. Ram Kumar Singh

2016-01-21

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2016
ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by order dated 10.02.2012 in Title Appeal No. 29 of 2009, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Mr. V. Shivnath, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that at the appellate stage, a subsequent purchaser cannot be impleaded as a party under Order I Rule 10 CPC. It is submitted that the transaction between the plaintiffs and the purchaser would be hit by lis pendence and therefore, a subsequent purchaser cannot be permitted to intervene at the appellate stage. 4. Title Suit No. 200 of 1997 was instituted by Smt. Krisni Devi Daga, Ram Kumar Singh and Deo Nandan Singh. The petitioner was defendant no. 1 therein. The suit was instituted for a decree of declaration of absolute ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and for a declaration that the sale-deed dated 05.02.1997 executed by the defendant nos. 2 & 3 in favour of the defendant no. 1 (the petitioner herein) is null and void. The defendant no. 1 filed written statement asserting that she had an agreement with one Swapan Kumar Chatterjee in the year, 1984 for the sale of half of the property for a consideration amount of Rs. 32,000/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- in cash was paid to him as part payment, and in pursuance thereof, she was put in possession of the property. However, unfortunately, Swapan Kumar Chatterjee died before executing sale-deed and his wife and daughter executed sale-deed dated 05.02.1997. The petitioner has averred that the Trial Court decreed the suit holding the sale-deed dated 05.02.1997 valid only to the extent of share left to the defendant nos. 2 & 3. Title Appeal No. 29 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner challenging judgment and order dated 22.05.2009 in Title Suit No. 200 of 1997. In the pending appeal the purchaser respondent no. 6 filed application dated 23.11.2011 under Order I Rule 10 CPC for his impleadment as respondent no. 6. 5. Insofar as, property comprised in sale-deed dated 19.01.2011/20.01.2011 vide sale-deed no. 87 is concerned, there is no dispute that as on the date of execution of the sale-deed, respondent nos. 1 & 2 were the absolute owners of the said property. The sale-deed dated 05.02.1997 executed in favour of the petitioner has been held valid in part only. 6. 5. Insofar as, property comprised in sale-deed dated 19.01.2011/20.01.2011 vide sale-deed no. 87 is concerned, there is no dispute that as on the date of execution of the sale-deed, respondent nos. 1 & 2 were the absolute owners of the said property. The sale-deed dated 05.02.1997 executed in favour of the petitioner has been held valid in part only. However, in the written statement the petitioner claimed that she is in possession of the suit property since 1984 itself. The respondent no. 6 has pleaded that the respondent nos. 1 & 2 are old persons and they have received the entire consideration amount and thus, they have lost interest in contesting the title appeal. Considering the aforesaid facts, the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that application under Order I Rule 10 CPC at the appellate stage is not maintainable, is liable to be rejected. However, considering the nature of right conferred upon a subsequent purchaser, the respondent no. 6 in his capacity as "intervenor-respondent no. 6" would not be permitted to lead evidence beyond execution and validity of the sale-deed dated 19.01.2011/20.01.2011. The writ petition stands dismissed however, with the aforesaid direction.