The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition filed against the order dated 02.09.2019 passed by Sub Judge, whereby the intervenor petition dated 24.04.2019 filed by the intervenor respondent no. 7 was allowed, held that the intervenor could not insist on being impleaded as a party in the partition suit of the plaintiff because she is neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the light of the relief claimed against the defendants, who are the husband and other family members of the intervenor.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners are plaintiffs, and they filed a title partition suit for partition of their joint 1/3rd share in the property of the plaint apart from other reliefs. The respondent nos. 1, 3, 4,5, and 6 are defendants in the partition suit. During the pendency of the partition suit, respondent no. 7 applied her impleadment as one of the defendants. The claim of respondent no. Seven is that her father-in-law, the father of petitioner no. 1, gifted her the suit property. This application of respondent no. Seven dated 24.04.2019 was allowed by the learned trial court, which is under challenge in the present civil miscellaneous petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable and has been passed against the provisions of law. The intervenor /respondent no. Seven is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the case. She has been making the claim of title upon the suit property based on forged documents. There could be no transfer of immovable property by way of an affidavit before the notary public.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that though petitioner no. 1 is the elder brother, he has not been taking care of his father, and for this reason, the father of petitioner no. 1 and father-in-law of respondent no. Seven transferred the land in her name since she resided with the parents and took care of him. He argued that it was the father who purchased the land in the name of his wife, and for this reason, he had the right to transfer the same as per his own Will.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the property belongs to the mother of plaintiff no. 1 and respondent no. 1, who died intestate, and after her death, the property would devolve upon her heirs/legal representatives.
The Court observed that the intervenor had asserted her right based on some gift deed in her favour. The gift deed is not registered, and it is merely a notorised document. If, on this ground, the intervenor seeks her impleadment, such impleadment in a partition suit would not be permissible for the reason that the intervenor would be making a claim in her independent capacity based on her right and title over the suit property and such claims needs to be adjudicated separately from the claim of the petitioner. The intervenor could not insist on being impleaded as a party in the partition suit of the plaintiff because she is neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the light of the relief claimed against the defendants, who are the husband and other family members of the intervenor.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the petition, held that there could not be any impleadment of respondent no. 7 as necessary or even as a proper party in the present case.
Case Title: Suman Kumar & Ors. v Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Case no.: Civil Misc. Jurisdiction No. 1582 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Dilip Kumar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Rabindra Prasad Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
