In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court emphasized that when defendants in a partition suit create third-party interests by selling property during litigation, the subsequent purchasers must be made parties to the case to avoid unnecessary complexity and further litigation. The judgment was delivered by Justice Arun Kumar Jha in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 320 of 2023, where the court set aside the trial court’s order that had rejected the plaintiff’s petition to implead the subsequent purchasers in the partition suit.
Background of the Case
The case involved a family partition dispute over property located in Powerganj, Anaith, in Bhojpur district. The plaintiff, Md. Atif Ansar, filed a partition suit (Title Suit No. 12 of 2007) seeking his share in the family property. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants executed several sale deeds in favor of third parties between 2012 and 2014, despite an earlier court order preventing them from selling the property.
In September 2022, the plaintiff filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requesting the trial court to implead the subsequent purchasers as parties to the suit. The trial court rejected the petition in January 2023, arguing that adding the purchasers would delay the case’s resolution, which was already in the final argument stage. Aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, the plaintiff filed a civil miscellaneous petition in the Patna High Court.
Legal Issues Involved
The central issue before the Patna High Court was whether the subsequent purchasers of the disputed property, who had acquired it during the pendency of the partition suit, should be made parties to the ongoing litigation.
The plaintiff’s counsel argued that by selling the property during the litigation, the defendants had created third-party interests, complicating the case. Impleading the subsequent purchasers was necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to protect the rights of all parties involved.
On the other hand, the counsel for the defendants opposed the petition, arguing that the plaintiff had delayed filing the impleadment application and that the sale transactions had taken place several years earlier. The defense also argued that the trial court was correct in rejecting the petition to avoid further delays in the proceedings.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Arun Kumar Jha, in his judgment, found that the trial court’s reasoning for rejecting the plaintiff’s petition was flawed. He observed that the complexity in the partition suit was a direct result of the defendants’ actions in selling the property during the litigation, in violation of an earlier court order. The court held that the defendants could not benefit from their own wrongdoing by preventing the subsequent purchasers from being made parties to the suit.
The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Amit Kumar Shaw vs. Farida Khatoon (AIR 2005 SC 2209), which established that a transferee pendente lite (during the pendency of litigation) is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom they acquired the interest. The court emphasized that such transferees have a right to be heard in the case to protect their interests.
The court also referred to the doctrine of lis pendens (Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act), which restricts the transfer of property during litigation. Justice Jha pointed out that although the doctrine of lis pendens applies, the subsequent purchasers are entitled to protect their interests in the suit and must be heard in the case.
Important Observations by the Court
Justice Arun Kumar Jha observed:
“If the defendants, by their own act, have created third-party interest and complicated the matter, they cannot take advantage of their own wrong and now claim that subsequent purchasers should not be made parties. If the subsequent purchasers are not made parties, it would result in complexity since a simple partition suit has been unnecessarily complicated by the defendants’ actions.”
The court further noted that if the subsequent purchasers were not impleaded, it could lead to further litigation and confusion in executing the decree, which would complicate the process even more.
Final Decision
The Patna High Court set aside the trial court’s order dated January 9, 2023, and allowed the plaintiff’s petition to implead the subsequent purchasers as parties to the partition suit. The court concluded that the presence of the subsequent purchasers was essential for the effective and complete adjudication of the case.
The court ordered that the subsequent purchasers be added as defendants in the suit to ensure that all interests are adequately represented and to prevent multiplicity of litigation. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings with the impleaded parties.
Parties and Representation
– Petitioner: Md. Atif Ansar
– Respondents: Rehan Mohammad Tarique & Others
– Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Jha
– Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Sarvadeo Singh and Mr. Naushad Akhtar
– Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Praveen Kumar and Mr. Raju Kumar Singh
