Dismissed

Mrs. Sudhbai Narsing Pupala and Ors. v. Narsubai S. Pupala and Ors. and Samar v Pupala and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Sept 2016CHS/47/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suit for partition, the Court dismissed the application to join heirs as co-plaintiffs due to representation conflicts under the Rules but directed their joinder as Defendants. It clarified the order did not preclude testamentary claims.

What did the court decide?

Application to join Applicants as Plaintiffs dismissed; directed to be joined as Defendants.

Mrs. Sudhbai Narsing Pupala and Ors. Vs Narsubai S. Pupala and Ors… — Partition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

922-CHS-47-2011.DOC

¶2

JSN

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 47 OF 2011

¶4

IN

¶5

SUIT NO. 438 OF 1951

¶6

Mrs. Sudhabai Narsingrao Pupala and others…Plaintiffs
Versus
Narsubai Shankerrao Pupala and others…Defendants

¶7

Ms. Meghna R. Mehta, i/b M/s Shah and Sanghavi for the
Plaintiffs.
Mrs. R.C. Nichani, i/b B.G. Saraf for Defendant No.1(b).

¶8

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 21st September 2016

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1.The application is for joining of two heirs of the deceased as
Plaintiff No.1 (b) (i) and Plaintiff No.1(b) (ii). It is filed by M/s.
Kadam and Company seeking that these two Applicants be
impleaded as Plaintiffs; the Plaintiffs are separately represented by
M/s. Shah and Sanghvi. Clearly this is not possible. It would result
in the original Plaintiffs, after amendment, being represented by
M/s. Shah and Sanghvi and these Applicants being represented as
co-Plaintiffs by M/s. Kadam and Company. Our Rules do not
permit this.

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

21st September 2016

¶13

922-CHS-47-2011.DOC

¶14

2.The Suit is for partition. There is no dispute that the
Applicants are the heirs of the erstwhile Plaintiff No.1(b). They may
be joined as Defendants Nos.9 and 10 to the present Suit.

¶15

3.It is clarified that this order does not mean that the Plaintiff
has given up her claim or contention that the Applicants have no
share, right, title and interest in the property in question. It is also
entirely without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
Plaintiff in any testamentary instrument that is being propounded
and in respect of which any order is obtained.

¶16

4.The newly added Defendants will be entitled to obtain
ordinary copies of the proceedings on their own costs.

¶17

5.The Applicants are not entitled to demand service of Writ of
Summons since they have been impleaded on their own motion.
They will file and serve their Written Statement on or before 14th
October 2016 and no later.

¶18

6.List the Suit itself for directions on 27th September 2016,
high on board.

¶19

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶20

Page 2 of 2
21st September 2016

Mrs. Sudhbai Narsing Pupala and Ors. v. Narsubai S. Pupala and Ors. and Samar v Pupala and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Sudhbai Narsing Pupala and Ors. v. Narsubai S. Pupala and Ors. and Samar v Pupala and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zih Corp and 2 Ors. Vs Zebra Technologies

Eros International Media Ltd. and Anr. Vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and 38 Ors.

Krian Pictures Limited Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and 51 Ors.

M/S Jawed Habib Hair and Beauty Limited Vs M/S Allure and 5 Other

M/S Jawed Habib Hair and Beauty Limited Vs M/S Allure and 5 Other

M/S Jawed Habib Hair and Beauty Limited Vs M/S Allure and 5 Other