Serophina Tigga vs Tapendra Mullick

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Plaintiff/Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.03.2023 in Misc. Civil Appeal No.994 of 2022 in Original Suit No.345 of 2020 by which opposite party no.9 has been impleaded under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the CPC.

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property which he acquired by way of adverse possession being in the settled possession of the said land since 1970. The suit land is measuring an area 134 Karis, Plot No.1242, corresponding to Holding No.614 of Municipal Survey Plot No.1437 within Ranchi Municipality. As per the case of the plaintiff/petitioner, it was recorded in the municipal survey in the name of Lalit Mohan Dey, son of Harprasad Dey, who was living in Kolkata and had completely abandoned the land. The petitioner came in possession of the land since 1970 and has been exercising all rights and possession. After constructing a house, the suit was filed impleading heirs and decedents of the recorded tenant. It is submitted that the intervenor applicant is complete stranger to the suit property and his impleadment would change the nature of the suit. If the intervenor applicant intent to assert his right, he is at liberty to file a separate suit.

Intervener applicant in this case is Durga Prasad, who claims to purchase the suit property by registered deed of sale from Lalit Mohan Dey. Plaintiff was in permissive possession over the land. Defendants, who have been impleaded, have no concern with the suit property.

Learned counsel on behalf of opposite party nos.1 – 7 submits that the opposite party nos.1 – 7 are the original defendants and also opposes the intervenor applicant on the basis of claim of title over the property on the basis of a registered WILL which was probated vide order dated 11.04.2016 in Probated Case No. 77 of 2012.

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, it is evident that intervenor applicant claims title over the suit property on the basis of the registered sale deed, whereas the plaintiff claims it on adverse possession. Having a claim of title on the basis of a registered sale deed, the intervenor is a necessary party and therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Any decision in the present case, will have a direct bearing on the title of the intervenor applicant and therefore, he cannot be shut out from the suit.

There is no infirmity in the impugned order.

Civil miscellaneous petition stands dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is dismissed.