Allowed

Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. MD Salim Ansari

Jharkhand HC9 Nov 2022C.M.P./70/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed a Writ petition quashing an order impleading pendente lite purchasers and subsequent purchasers in a partition suit. The Court distinguished Savitri Devi, holding a subsequent purchaser has no right to equities and cannot be impleaded.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of impleadment was set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Petition was allowed.

Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs MD Salim Ansari — Partition | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 70 of 2020

¶2

------ Rajesh Kumar Gupta .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. Md. Salim Ansari 2. Md. Samim Ansari 3. Md. Nasim Ansari 4. Moti Lal Sahu

¶3

Bimla Devi

¶4

Mamta Devi

¶5

Suchitra Devi

¶6

Juhi Devi

¶7

Rita Devi 10. Rina Devi 11. Sanchita Devi 12. Santoshi Devi 13. Lovely Kumari 14. Phul Devi 15. Nanda Yadav 16. Parimal Kumar .... .... .... Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate Ms. Apurwa Pathak, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, Advocate

¶10

Oral Order

¶11

07/ Dated :09.11.2022

¶12

Instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 19.07.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Deoghar in Title (P) Suit No.48 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has allowed the petition for being impleaded by opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3, who are pendente lite purchasers of suit property during pendency of the partition suit.

¶13

The question arises in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is whether pendente lite purchasers can be impleaded?

¶14

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that coordinate Bench of this Court in an order passed in W.P.(C) No.5237 of 2015; Anita Soni Versus Smt. Mina Devi reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Jhar 1155 has held that a purchaser pendente lite, who has purchased the suit property or a part of the suit property from another purchaser/purchaser pendente lite, has no right to equities and, thus, cannot be impleaded in a partition suit.

¶15

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of opposite parties

¶16

¶17

that the authority relied by the petitioner is not against the opposite party Nos.8 and 9. Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act does not bar transfer of property. The object of Section 52 is that any transfer will be subject to the final outcome of the suit. In Savitri Devi Versus District Judge, Gorakhpur & Others reported in (1999) 2 SCC 577 , the petition of the pendente lite purchase was allowed and their Lordship held that they were necessary party. 5. In the authority relied upon by the opposite party i.e. Savitri Devi (supra), the matter involved was the impleadment of the pendente lite purchaser and not that of a purchaser from a pendente lite purchaser. In view of the direct authority of this Court on the issue of impleadment of a subsequent purchaser from the pendente lite purchaser, this Court is of the view that the learned Court below was in error to implead the purchaser from the pendente lite purchaser.

¶18

The impugned order is set aside. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

¶19

Anit

Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. MD Salim Ansari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. MD Salim Ansari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakhipada Maji Vs Arti Mandalian

Chitranjan Mandal Vs Kumud Ranjan Samant Roy

Ms Shyam Steel Traders through Its Proprietor Mr Prabhash Kumar Agrawal Vs Marwari Panchayat through Its General Secretary

Rajeev Kumar Jha Vs Soni Devi

Supriya Saha Alias Supriya Sah Vs State of Jharkhand

Abul Hassan Vs State of Jharkhand