Patna High Court
Rekha Devi vs Kunti Devi on 24 February, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1422 of 2019
======================================================
Rekha Devi W/o Shri Ram Bilas Singh, Resident of Village and P.O.- Sisauni,
P.S.- Dandari, District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Kunti Devi W/o Shree Shankar Singh @ Baleshwar Singh. Resident of
Village- Khamhar, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Begusarai.
2. Deepak Kumar Singh, S/o Shree Shankar Singh @ Baleshwar Singh,
Resident of Village- Khamhar, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Begusarai.
3. Draupadi Devi, W/o Sri Krishnandan Singh, Resident of Village- Sisauni,
P.S.- Naokothi, District- Begusarai at present Mohalla Harrakha, P.S.- Town,
District- Begusarai.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Res No. 3 : Mr. J. S. Arora, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ravi Bhatiya, Advocatte
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-02-2025
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3.
Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of
respondent nos. 1 and 2.
02. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
12.07.2019
passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ballia, Begusarai
in Title Suit No. 335 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the
learned Sub Judge allowed the petition dated 02.02.2016 filed
by the intervenor petitioner/respondent no. 3 under Order 1 Rule
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1422 of 2019 dt.24-02-2025
10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code').
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner purchased a piece of land from respondent no. 2, who
got the land from respondent no. 1, and subsequently respondent
no. 1 approved the sale to the petitioner by respondent no. 2.
Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are mother and son, respectively. Later
on, respondent no. 1 sold the same piece of land to respondent
no. 3 on 12.07.2014 vide a registered sale deed. Learned counsel
further submits that the purchase by petitioner was prior to the
subsequent sale deed of the respondent no. 3, as respondent no.
2 sold the piece of land to the petitioner on 17.07.2010 by way
of a registered sale deed. Learned counsel further submits that
the petitioner got the said land mutated in her name and started
paying rent to the State. Since the respondent no. 1, with
dishonest intention to grab the suit land, started conspiring to
alienate the suit land, the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 335 of
2014 making respondent nos. 1 and 2 as defendant nos. 1 and 2,
respectively, while seeking relief of declaration of her title over
the suit property as mentioned in Schedule-1 of the plaint.
During pendency of the suit, the respondent no. 3 filed
intervention application on 02.02.2016 to implead her as
necessary party claiming to be a purchaser of the land in
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1422 of 2019 dt.24-02-2025
question through sale deed dated 12.07.2014 from the defendant
no. 1/respondent no. 1. The said intervention application was
allowed by the learned trial court by the impugned order dated
12.07.2019 and the impugned order is not sustainable and it has
been passed without appreciating the fact that the
plaintiff/petitioner was the purchaser who came into title and
possession of the suit land in the year 2010 after purchasing the
said land from the son of the respondent no. 1. The relief sought
by the plaintiff/petitioner is against respondent nos. 1 and 2 and
not against the intervenor. If the same land was sold twice, the
subsequent purchaser could only raise a claim for compensation
and not a right to be impleaded in the title suit filed by the
plaintiff/petitioner. She is neither a necessary nor a proper party.
Moreover, a person cannot be impleaded as a party against the
wishes of the plaintiff. The petitioner is purchaser of the land in
question through a registered sale deed dated 17.07.2010 from
the recorded tenant and it was mutated in the name of the
petitioner whereas the intervenor has her claim only by virtue of
the subsequent purchaser of the land in question through sale
deed dated 12.07.2014. Therefore, as the petitioner has been
making claim only against defendant nos. 1 and 2/ respondent
nos. 1 and 2 for asserting her right, the respondent no. 3 cannot
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1422 of 2019 dt.24-02-2025
be impleaded as defendant and the petitioner cannot be
compelled to sue respondent no. 3 against whom, she has not
sought any relief. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the
impugned order is not sustainable and the same needs to be set
aside.
04. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
intervenor/respondent no. 3 submits that the small issue
involved in the present lis is whether the sale deed of petitioner
or the sale deed of respondent no. 3 is legal and is therefore a
valid sale deed. The respondent no. 3 purchased the land from
respondent no. 1, who was the exclusive owner of the land, as
she got the property after devolution of the same upon her and
respondent no. 2 has got no claim over the self acquired
property of the respondent no. 1. Still, respondent no. 2 sold the
land to the petitioner and the said sale cannot be stated to be
valid. In any case, the respondent no. 3, being the purchaser
from the rightful owner, she has got proper interest in pursuing
the litigation to assert her claim of right and title over the suit
land and the learned trial court rightly impleaded her as party.
05. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code
reads as under: -
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1422 of 2019 dt.24-02-2025
"10 (2). Court may strike out or add
parties - The Court may at any stage of the
proceedings, either upon or without the
application of either party, and on such
terms as may appear to the Court to be
just, order that the name of any party
improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or
defendant, be struck out, and that the
name, of any person who ought to have
been joined, whether as plaintiff or
defendant, or whose presence before the
Court may be necessary in order to enable
the Court effectually and completely to
adjudicate upon and settle all the questions
involved in the suit, be added."
06. Obviously, the aforesaid provision empowers the
court to add or strike out the name of any person at any stage of
the proceeding. It is entirely at the discretion of the court and
the said discretion is to be exercised by the court for effectually
and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions
involved in the suit.
07. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnership Firm
Beawer (Raj.), reported in (2007) 10 SCC 82, has held that a
party having a semblance of interest in the suit property could
be impleaded as a party in the suit.
08. In the case of Amit Kumar Shaw and Another vs.
Farida Khatoon and Another reported in AIR 2005 SC 2209,
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1422 of 2019 dt.24-02-2025
the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the applicability
of doctrine of lis pendens, held that even 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. Apparently the case of the intervenor is on much better
footing as she is not a purchaser pendente lite.
09. In the present case, the petitioner and respondent
no. 2 claims their right and title over the suit land through two
registered sale deeds. Merely because of the sale deed of the
petitioner was prior in time, the subsequent sale deed could not
be brushed aside on the ground that the subsequent vendor has
no right to sale. The question of legality of sale deed and the
right and title of vendor is to be decided by the learned trial
court and no opinion could be formed beforehand and at this
stage. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly allowed the
intervention application of the respondent no. 3.
10. In the light of discussion made here-in-before, I do
not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the
impugned order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the learned Sub
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1422 of 2019 dt.24-02-2025
Judge, Ballia, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 335 of 2014 is hereby
affirmed.
11. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed
being devoid of any merit.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27.02.2025
Transmission Date Na
