Dismissed

Smt. Laxmi Devi and 3 Others v. 12TH Additional District Judge Kanpur Nagar and 8 Others

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2019A227/411/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the Court dismissed challenges to the rejection of an impleadment application. The Court held that purchasers cannot replace the vendor in a simpliciter injunction suit absent a declaration of title or partition, so the revisional court conclusion was correct.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed for lack of merits.

Smt. Laxmi Devi and 3 Others Vs 12TH Additional District Judge… — Partition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 411 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Laxmi Devi And 3 Others Respondent :- 12th Additional District Judge Kanpur Nagar And 8 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the revisional court whereby the impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'C.P.C.') filed by the petitioners was rejected while setting aside the order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the trial court in Original Suit No.514 of 2009 (Babu Lal v. Mohit & Ors.).

¶8

The said suit has been brought by the plaintiff-respondent no.2 against the respondents 3 to 5/defendants stating therein that the defendants were illegally interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property and they be restrained from selling the suit property without there being a partition by metes and bounds.

¶9

A perusal of the plaint averments indicates that the plaintiffs and defendants both belong to the same family. The petitioners herein have filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. claiming them to be purchasers from the plaintiff of Original Suit No.514 of 2009 (Babu Lal v. Mohit & Ors.). The assertion in the impleadment application was that after purchase of a portion of house in question, i.e. the suit property, the applicants had obtained possession of the same and they are in possession of the suit property being co-owners thereof. As their interest would be affected in case of grant of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, their vendors, they are necessary party to the suit.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the applicants claimed their right in the suit property through the sale deed dated 18.12.1998 executed by the plaintiffs prior to bringing the instant suit before the civil court. It is contended that after execution of the sale deed in favour of the impleadment applicants, the plaintiff had left with no right in the suit property and the applicant became owner of 1/3rd share in the suit property. They are, therefore, necessary parties. Further when the trial court had allowed the impleadment application exercising its judicial discretion, there was no occasion for the revisional court to interfere.

¶11

Testing these submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, noticing the fact that the plaintiff had brought suit against other cosharers of the suit property seeking to restrain them from creating third party right over the suit property. For the claim of the impleadment applicants of their right to the suit property, on the alleged purchase from the plaintiff, they can bring an independent suit before the Competent court of civil jurisdiction for any

¶12

interference. The alleged purchasers of the plaintiff cannot be said to replace the plaintiff to seek relief in a simplicitor suit for injunction wherein there is no relief of declaration of rights of the parties nor any relief of partition has been sought.

¶13

In any case,with the addition of the applicants/petitioners as plaintiff in the Original Suit No.514 of 2009 (Babu Lal v. Mohit & Ors.), the scope of injunction suit would be enlarged, which cannot be permitted.

¶14

No infirmity is, thus, found in the conclusion drawn by the revisional court. The present petition is, thus, found devoid of merits and hence dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 15.2.2019 Jyotsana

Smt. Laxmi Devi and 3 Others v. 12TH Additional District Judge Kanpur Nagar and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Laxmi Devi and 3 Others v. 12TH Additional District Judge Kanpur Nagar and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Anand Prakash Rai and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijmani Devi Devendra Jain Samiti, through Its President Rai Virendra Prasad Jain and Another Vs Smt. Suman Dubey

Jigendra Singh Vs Renu Prajapati

Manmohan Nath Dubey Vs Vinod Dubey and 3 Others

Vishal Saini Vs Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Hapur and 13 Others

Pratibha Jha Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ghaziabad and Another