Krishnan vs Narasimman, Lakshmi, Janaki Ammal and Raman

Gnanaprakasam, J.—Revision petitioner had purchased the share of 5th respondent in I.A. No. 115 of 1999 in the partition suit O.S. No.

77 of 1981 filed by the respondents 3 and 4 herein. It appears that the revision petitioner had purchased the share of the 5th respondent during the

pendency of the partition suit. Preliminary decree has already been passed and the plaintiffs have filed an application for passing of final decree in

I.A. No. 115 of 1999. The revision petitioner filed an application to implead himself as a party to the said proceedings and the same was resisted

by the respondents herein and the trial court had dismissed the petition on the ground that he is not a necessary and proper party to the

proceedings, based upon the decision of this court reported in Bakthavatsalam Vs. Anjapuli and 5 others, :

But now the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has placed the decision rendered by this court in Sengamalam, S. v. The Idol of

Arulmighu Ranganathaswami, Srirangam 1999 3 L.W.888 (S.S. SUBRAMANI, J.) wherein the learned Judge relied upon the decision reported

in Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others, wherein it was observed;

Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, enables the court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the

court is necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

Avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision in the Code.

and allowed the application filed by the party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. In fact, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was also taken into

consideration in allowing the application.

Learned advocate for the respondents opposed the petition on the ground that the revision petitioner had purchased the property during the

pendency of the suit and he has not chosen to implead himself in the suit and that therefore, he cannot be impleaded as a party in the final decree

proceedings.

In our case, the revision petitioner had purchased the share of 5th respondent in the final decree proceedings and if he is not permitted to

implead himself, he will not be able to work out his remedy. No doubt it is true that the revision petitioner had purchased the property before

passing of the preliminary decree and he should have taken necessary steps to implead himself as a party in the suit. But that cannot be the only

ground to disallow the petition to implead himself in the final decree proceedings. The test is as to whether the presence of the party before the

court is necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit and also

to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings. As such the application taken out by the revision petitioner is sustainable. But however, the revision

petitioner cannot claim more right than what his vendor had and that therefore, the court should have allowed the application filed by the revision

petitioner to implead himself as a party in the final decree proceedings as he is a transferee, who is having an interest in the property. In fact he is a

representative-in-interest of the party, from whom he has acquired that interest and has the right to get impleadment is only on the basis of

assignment as it has been considered by the Supreme Court in Khemchand Shankar Choudhari and Another Vs. Vishnu Hari Patil and Others, : In

fact On the decision rendered in Veera Raghva vs. Subba Reddi AIR 1920 Mad 391 this court held,

Under Order 22, Rr 10 and 11, a transferee pendente lite is entitled to come on record and to conduct all proceedings from the date he is added

as a party, though he is bound by all orders passed up to that date and cannot raise defences not open to his transferor.

I am in agreement with the said observation and the revision petitioner cannot have a better title or interest than what his vendor had and therefore,

as a transferee, he is entitled to step into the shoes of the 5th respondent. As it has already been observed, the revision petitioner is bound by all

the proceedings that had been taken place in this case and he cannot also claim more or better interest or title than his vendor had in the suit. In the

said circumstances, I am of the view that the order passed by the trial court has got to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside.

In the result, revision petition is allowed and the order of the trial court dated 10.6.2001 is set aside. Consequently, no order is necessary in

C.M.P. No. 14139 of 2001 and the same is closed. No costs.

As the suit is of the year 1981, the trial court is directed to take up the matter at the earliest point of time and dispose of the same as

expeditiously as possible.