At Stage Of Preliminary Decree, Purchaser Of Undivided Interest Has No Say In A Partition Suit: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, has held that the purchaser of an undivided interest, who has no locus in a partition suit, has no say at the stage of preliminary decree. The Court was adjudicating a writ petition, wherein the purchaser of an undivided interest had challenged the order of Civil Court passed in a partition suit allowing amendment to the same.

The bench comprising of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed, “It is quite strange to know that petitioner who is purchaser of undivided interest who has no locus in a partition suit has ventured in challenging the order passed on amendment application. While drawing a preliminary decree, a stranger-purchaser has no say in the suit. Merely because, he is impleaded in the suit, will not give a right to him to dictate as to how the suit has to be proceeded with. His rights, if any, in an undivided interest has to be worked out in final decree proceedings.”

BACKGROUND FACTS

A suit for partition and separate possession was filed before the Civil Court. The Defendants in the suit had taken a stand that the Plaintiffs did not included all the properties, therefore, suit for partial partition is not maintainable. In pursuance of the same, the Plaintiffs by way of amendment have sought leave of the Court to include all the properties. On 03.09.2022, the Civil Court passed an order permitting the inclusion of left out properties.

Sri Vinayak ("Petitioner") filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking quashing of the order dated 03.09.2022. The Petitioner is the purchaser of an undivided interest and has been impleaded in the said suit. 

HIGH COURT VERDICT

The Court noted that the suit is for partition and separate possession. The Petitioner being a purchaser of undivided interest has no locus standi in a partition. Therefore, the Petitioner being a starnger-purchaser has no say in the preliminary decree to the suit. Mere impleaded in a partition suit would not entitle the Petitioner to dictate the manner in which the suit is to be proceeded. The rights of the Petitioner, if any, in an undivided interest has to be considered in a final decree. 

Then Court held, “It is quite strange to know that petitioner who is purchaser of undivided interest who has no locus in a partition suit has ventured in challenging the order passed on amendment application. While drawing a preliminary decree, a stranger-purchaser has no say in the suit. Merely because, he is impleaded in the suit, will not give a right to him to dictate as to how the suit has to be proceeded with. His rights, if any, in an undivided interest has to be worked out in final decree proceedings.”

Accordingly, the writ petition has been dismissed by the Court for twin reasons, “Firstly, the order under challenge is in accordance with law. Secondly, the petitioner being a stranger-purchaser could not have knocked the door of this Court.”

Case Title: Vinayak Metrani And Gadigevva @ Neelavva & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 106032 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 313

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Chetan T Limbikai 

Cousnel for Respondents: Advocates Sachin C Angadi & H.N. Doddamani

Click Here To Read/Download Order