Defendants Cannot Benefit From Own Wrong, After Alienating Partition Suit Property And Oppose Impleadment Of Purchasers: Patna HC
Image By: Siddharth Anand
While quashing a trial court order which had rejected the addition of subsequent purchasers as defendants in a partition suit, the Patna High Court observed that the defendant parties cannot benefit from their own wrongful actions particularly after creating third-party interests during the pendency of the suit.
A single judge bench of Justice Arun Kumar Jha in its order said, “The reasoning adopted by the learned trial court for dismissal of the petition is flawed in the sense that the learned trial court entirely went by the stage of the suit before it and on consideration that it will cause delay in disposal of the suit. The learned trial court went to the extent on recording that if the purchasers are made party, the defendants would be seriously prejudiced and there would be problem in disposal of the suit. Apparently these facts could not be made a ground for refusing the prayer of the plaintiff.”
“If the defendants by their own act have created third party interest and has complicated the matter, they cannot take advantage of own wrong and now claim that subsequent purchasers should not be made parties. If the subsequent purchasers are not made party, it would result in complexity in the matter since a simple partition suit has been unnecessarily complicated by the acts of defendants 1st set by creating third party interest and such subsequent purchasers are proper parties though they may not be necessary parties. It is also surprising that subsequent purchasers have not come forward before the court to get themselves impleaded,” Justice Jha added.
The ruling came in response to a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order passed by the Sub Judge in a title suit, whereby the Sub Judge had rejected the petitioner's plea to implead additional defendants. The petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the trial court, sought to add purchasers of the disputed property as defendants, as the original defendants had executed several sale deeds in favour of third parties, despite an earlier undertaking not to alienate the property during the pendency of the suit.
The plaintiff had filed a suit for partition, seeking a share in the family property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from selling the property. This application was disposed of on March 30, 2010 based on the defendants' undertaking that they would not alienate the property during the pendency of the proceedings. However, the defendants violated this undertaking by executing several sale deeds in favour of third-party purchasers, he said.
In response, the plaintiff filed a petition to implead these purchasers as defendants in the suit. However, the trial court dismissed the petition, primarily on the ground that the suit had reached the stage of final arguments, and impleading additional defendants would delay the proceedings. Against this dismissal, the plaintiff moved the high court.
The petitioner-plaintiff argued that the trial court's dismissal was contrary to settled legal principles and that the stage of the suit should not have been a valid reason for refusing the impleadment of subsequent purchasers. He contended that allowing the third-party sales to stand without involving the purchasers in the suit would prejudice his claim for partition and dilute his share in the property.
The respondent defendants, on the other hand opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner plaintiff had filed the impleadment petition after a significant delay. They pointed out that the property transactions occurred between 2012 and 2014, but the plaintiff sought impleadment only in 2022. The defendants maintained that there was no infirmity in the trial court's order.
The High Court in its ruling relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, reported in (2005) whereby the Apex Court had held that 'necessary parties' are those persons in whose absence no decree can be passed by the Court or that there must be a right to some relief against some party in respect of the controversy involved in the proceedings. On the other hand 'proper parties' are those whose presence before the Court would be necessary in order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit although no relief in the suit was claimed against such a person.
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's judgement in Amit Kumar Shaw and another vs. Farida Khatoon and another (2005), whereby the Apex Court had observed that while dealing with the applicability of doctrine of lis pendens, held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest and he is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where the transferee pendente lite is made a party to the litigation, he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case.
Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court opined, “the learned trial court committed error of jurisdiction when it dismissed the petition of the plaintiff.”
Accordingly, allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the trial court's order and directed the impleadment of the third-party purchasers in the suit.
Case Title: Md. Atif Ansar vs Rehan Mohammad Tarique and Ors
LL Citation: