Skip to main content

Any person having substantial interest in disputed property has to be a necessary party in the suit

In Lal Babu Sao v. State of Jharkhand, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi  addressed a petition on a title suit wherein the petitioner had initially filed a suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the land in question and a decree of confirmation of his possession over that land and alternatively, if he was found dispossessed during the pendency of the suit recovery, then khas possession be given to him instead.
In the pending suit, an application for impleadment in the title suit was filed by a third party under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, to be considered a defendant in the suit. This application was allowed by the Court against which the petitioner filed the present petition.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the title suit was instituted against a sole defendant i.e. the State. Allowing the third party’s impleadment would lead to a situation where there would be three persons claiming right, title and interest over the property in question and thus any decision that would be taken in the title suit concerned would affect the petitioner adversely.
The Court held that a person who has any substantial interest in the property in question and as long as his interest is not merely peripheral has to be a necessary party in the suit. The Court acknowledged that any adjudication in the title suit would affect the proceeding of the other title suit filed by the third party seeking impleadment in the main title suit. The mere fact that no relief had been sought against the third party respondent was not sufficient to non-suit him. Dismissing the petition, the Court also observed that the object for adding a party in exercise of power under Order I Rule 10(2) is to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more