Proposed Purchaser Of Joint Family Property Cannot Be Impleaded As Party Respondent In Suit For Partition: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a proposed purchaser of a joint family property cannot be impleaded as a party respondent in a suit for partition and separate possession between family members.

A single judge bench of Justice M G Uma set aside the trial court order allowing one Murugan to be impleaded in the suit between family members. It said,

“I am of the opinion that defendant No.4 [Murugan] who is impleaded by virtue of impugned order was neither a necessary party nor proper party to be impleaded. No right is created under agreement for sale in respect of scheduled property, except the right to seek specific performance of contract against defendant No.1, which he has already done by filing suit.”

The petitions claimed that the suit is for partition and separate possession and defendant No.4 filed application IA No.X under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking his impleadment and the same came to be allowed by the Trial Court without assigning any reasons.

The respondent Murugan submitted that he entered into an agreement for sale with defendant No.1 on 30.12.2011. Admittedly, at that time the present suit was pending consideration as on the date of agreement for sale. Further, it was admitted that the sale agreement is not a registered agreement and no sale deed was executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4 to treat him as transferee of property during the pendency of suit.

The bench noted that from the records that are available, it could be made out that, defendant No.4 has already filed the suit against defendant No.1 seeking specific performance of contract on the basis of the very same agreement for sale.

Following which it said “Even if defendant No.4 is to succeed in the said suit his rights will be subject to the result of the present suit and determination of right of defendant No.1. He can not seek any independent right against the plaintiff or against any other defendants. His remedy is only against defendant No.1.”

Thus it held “The Trial Court committed an error in forming an opinion that the presence of defendant No.4 is necessary for determination of dispute between the parties and the same cannot be accepted.”

Accordingly it allowed the petition.

Appearance: Advocate Madhukeshwara.P for Advocate Sachin B.S for Petitioners.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 42

Case Title: Master Thejas & Another AND C R Babu

Case No: Writ Petition No 37203 OF 2015

Click Here To Read/Download Order