Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1173 (RAJ)

Pinki D/o Narain Singh v. Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Kabra

2017-05-09

DINESH MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. By way of the present writ petition, the Petitioner has called in question, the order dated 22.08.2016 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Bhilwara, whereby he has rejected the petitioners' application dated 06.12.2014 (Annexure-2), filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking impleadment in the Civil Original Suit No. 169/2014 pending in the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara. 2. The said suit came to be filed by plaintiffs (respondent No. 1 to 4 herein) against the defendant (respondent No. 5 herein), seeking partition of the land jointly purchased by them by meets and bounds. 3. The petitioners being daughters of Narayan Singh, submitted an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia seeking their impleadment, contending inter alia that the property in question is ancestral property and defendant, son of Narayan Singh had no right to transfer or alienate the same. It is not in dispute that the suit in question, came to be filed by the plaintiffs, namely; Vinod Kumar; Dharmendra; Ghanshyam and Pratap Singh seeking partition by meets and bounds, of the property jointly purchased by them alonwith defendant Satyadev Singh son of Shri Narayan Singh. 4. By way of the suit in question the plaintiffs have sought partition of the land, jointly purchased by them. 5. Learned Trial Court has rejected the petitioners' application observing inter alia that the suit in question was a suit for partition of the property, jointly purchased by plaintiffs and defendant, in which the applicant cannot seek impleadment, on the ground that the said Narayan Singh did not have any right to transfer. 6. I have heard Mr. VN Kalla, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record, including the plaint, application for impleadment and corresponding reply filed by the defendants. On perusal of the plaint in question, this Court finds that the present suit had been filed by the plaintiffs seeking partition of property, jointly purchased by them along with defendant Satyadev Singh son of Shri Narayan Singh. The suit for partition of the property was not on based on the right of inheritance. As such, the petitioners being daughters of Narayan Singh had no right or locus to interject in the suit proceedings. The suit for partition of the property was not on based on the right of inheritance. As such, the petitioners being daughters of Narayan Singh had no right or locus to interject in the suit proceedings. If the petitioners have any grievance against the alienation, they are required to take up appropriate proceedings, independently. 7. Learned Trial Court has rejected the application seeking impleadment, vide order impugned dated 22.08.2016, which is perfectly just and proper in the factual matrix of the present case. No interference is called for. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.