Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1740 (JHR)

Dip Narayan Singh v. Malti Devi

2018-08-06

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that defects as pointed out by the registry have been removed. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 01.12.2017 passed in Title Suit No. 08 of 2006 by which his application for impleadment has been rejected. 3. Plea urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a subsequent purchaser is a necessary party in the suit. 4. Title Suit No. 08 of 2006 was instituted for a decree for declaration of the plaintiffs right, title and interest over schedule ''B'' property and for a decree for declaration that judgment in T. S. No. 239 of 1968 is not binding upon them. The suit was instituted on 18.03.2006 and a written statement on behalf of defendant nos. 1 to 6 and 9 and 10 was filed on 01.09.2006. In the pending suit about 10 years thereafter an application was filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC for his impleadment in the suit. The petitioner claims that he has purchased 19.5. decimals land in schedule ''B'' property from defendant no. 22 who had purchased the said property from plaintiff no. 1 through registered sale-deed dated 11.02.1991. Petitioner claims that a part of the suit schedule property has been conveyed to him through registered sale-deeds dated 01.09.2016 and 23.02.2017. His further claim is that he is in possession of the lands comprised under the aforesaid saledeeds. 5. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and Another , (1963) AIR SC 786 the Supreme Court has explained who is a necessary party and who can be a proper party in the suit. The one in whose absence an effective decision cannot be rendered is a necessary party and the one in whose presence a decision can be rendered but in whose absence a complete and effective decision cannot be rendered is a proper party. Suit instituted by the plaintiffs is primarily a suit for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land. Presence of subsequent purchaser in a suit for declaration of title is not necessary for adjudicating the dispute involved in the suit. Moreover, a subsequent purchaser is governed by lis pendens and while so, he would be bound by the decision in the suit. 6. Presence of subsequent purchaser in a suit for declaration of title is not necessary for adjudicating the dispute involved in the suit. Moreover, a subsequent purchaser is governed by lis pendens and while so, he would be bound by the decision in the suit. 6. In the above facts, the trial Judge has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner for impleadment in the suit. 7. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 01.12.2017 the writ petition is dismissed.