A civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to implead a fifth respondent who purchased a scheduled property. The court allowed the revision and ordered the impleadment.
Civil Revision Petition No.5530 of 2010 allowed; I.A.No.215 of 2010 allowed for impleading 5th respondent as Defendant No.5.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.5530 of 2010
ORDER:
The petitioner filed O.S.No.11 of 2009 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Adhanki against respondents 1 to 4 for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. On coming to know that the 5th respondent herein purchased an item of immovable property, included in the suit schedule, the petitioner filed I.A.No.215 of 2010 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. with a prayer to implead the 5th respondent as 5th defendant. The application was opposed by the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 09.08.2010. Hence, this revision.
Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned counsel for the 5th respondent.
In a suit for partition, the identification of properties that are available for partition happens to be an important step. In case, such properties are in possession and enjoyment of the parties to the suit, no difficulty arises as such. However, if one or more items are under the enjoyment of others, on the basis of transfers from the coparceners or co-owners, it becomes necessary to implead the persons, who are in enjoyment of the property. The sale or transfer as such may not get effected on account of any preliminary decree. The presence of the transferees in the suit would be in the interest of all. If it emerges that the property being enjoyed by them is liable to be partitioned, necessary steps have to be taken either in
the preliminary decree or final decree.
Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. As a result, I.A.No.215 of 2010 is allowed and the 5th respondent is impleaded as defendant No.5 in the suit. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________ 02.08.2011
JSU
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.5530 of 2010
Date: 02.08.2011
JSU
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a person who purchased an item of immovable property included in the suit schedule should be impleaded as a party to a partition suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondents 1 to 4
5th Respondent
L. Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
