Jharkhand High Court
Bimal Chandra Das & Ors vs Mumtaz Ansari & Ors on 6 May, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. A. No. 454 of 2016
Bimal Chandra Das & Ors. .... .... Appellants
Versus
Mumtaz Ansari & Ors. .... .... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Advocate
For the Intervener : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
09 / Dated : 06.05.2024
The notices issued on respondent nos. 1, 2, 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) are declared to
be served validly.
I.A. No. 9335 of 2019
1. Heard learned counsel for the intervener-applicant-M/s Shriram Residency
Private Limited in this interlocutory application which has been filed under
Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC for impleadment as respondent no.5.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel that the appeal has been preferred by the
plaintiff against the judgment of affirmance by which the suit for
declaration of title has been dismissed by both the Courts below by ex-parte
judgment and decree.
3. The intervener-applicant during pendency of the title suit purchased the suit
property from defendant nos. 1 to 4 by registered sale deed Nos. 1744/1628
and 1745/1629 both dated 24.02.2009. The intervener-applicant also
purchased from the contesting defendants other part of suit property vide
sale deed Nos. 1772/1656 dated 25.02.2009, 5019/4702 dated 05.05.2009
and 5018/4701 dated 05.05.2009.
4. After the said purchase, the land has been mutated in his name and he is
necessary party for hearing in the instant appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the intervener-application
was filed way back in 2019 but till date no rejoinder has been filed on
behalf of the appellants and adjournment is being sought for seeking
instruction in the matter.
6. After having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the
sides matter for consideration is whether the intervener applicants, who are
the subsequent purchasers of the suit property are necessary party for being
impleaded at this stage.
7. It has been held in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, (2005) 6 SCC 733 :
In equity as well as in law, the contract constitutes rights and also
regulates the liabilities of the parties. A purchaser is a necessary party as
he would be affected if he had purchased with or without notice of the
contract, but a person who claims adversely to the claim of a vendor is,
however, not a necessary party. From the above, it is now clear that two
tests are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary
party. Tests are -- (1) there must be a right to some relief against such
party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings; (2) no
effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party.
Amit Kumar Shaw VS Farida Khatoon,2005 11 SCC 403
An alienee pendente lite is bound by the final decree that may be passed in
the suit. Such an alienee can be brought on record both under this rule as
also under O 1 Rule 10. Since under the doctrine of lis pendens a decree
passed in the suit during the pendency of which a transfer is made binds
the transferee, his application to be brought on record should ordinarily be
allowed.
Considering the settled law, the intervener application for being
impleaded in the second appeal is allowed, since the suit property has been
claimed to be purchased by the intervener application, therefore he is a
necessary party for being heard. Let the name of the intervener applicant be
entered in the cause title of the appeal in red ink as respondent. Office to make
necessary entry in this regard.
Interlocutory application is allowed.
The notices issued on respondent nos. 1, 2, 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) are
declared to be served validly.
Put up this case after Summer Vacation.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satendra
Uploaded
