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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more