subsequent purchaser was also necessary and proper party to suit - mere pendency of suit does not prevent one of parties from dealing with property

CDJ 2014 MHC 3746

Joseph Joys Versus Jesu Jebamalai & Others

Head Note

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 – Code of Civil Procedure – Order 1 Rule 10 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 19(b) – Necessary party – Petitioner was proposed third party – first Respondent filed suit against second Respondent, for permanent injunction restraining him from blocking or obstructing plaint schedule property – that pending suit, portion of property was purchased by Petitioner's Principal – that after such purchase, Petitioner filed interlocutory application to implead as third Defendant in suit – first Respondent resisted said application – Trial Court dismissed application on ground that Petitioner's principal purchased property during pendency of suit – civil revision petition filed – Petitioner allegation that third Respondent also subsequent purchaser was impleaded as second Defendant – that Petitioner was also similarly placed person like third Respondent – that Judge ought to have allowed application – first Respondent allegation that when vendor of Petitioner is already on record, Petitioner/subsequent purchaser was not necessary and proper party –

Court held – that subsequent purchaser was also necessary and proper party to suit – that issue has to be decided on facts of each case – that mere pendency of suit does not prevent one of parties from dealing with property constituting subject- matter of suit – section 52 of TP Act postulates a condition that alienation would in no manner affect rights of other party under any decree which may be passed in suit unless property was alienated with permission of court – that Petitioner was necessary and proper party – Petitioner similarly placed person like third Respondent – that there is no reason to differentiate Petitioner from third Respondent – Trial Court order set aside – Civil Revision Petition allowed.

Paras (8, 12, 13)

Case Relied:
1. V.L.Dhandapani Vs. Revathy Ramachandran & Others, 2014 (3) LW 769.

Cases Referred:
1. Amit Kumar Shaw and Another Vs. Farida Khatoon and Another, 2005 (4) CTC 47,
2. Thomson Press (India) Ltd., Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd. & Others, 2013 (2) CTC 104,
3. Nagubai Ammal & Ors. v. B. Shama Rao & Ors., AIR 1856 SC 593,
4. Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj, (2010) 8 SCC 1,
5. Nawab John & Ors. v. V.N. Subramanyam, (2012) 7 SCC 738,
6. Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami and Ors., (1972) 2 SCC 2003,
7. Rikhu Dev, Chela Bawa Harjug Dass v. Som Dass (deceased) through his Chela Shiama Dass, (1976) 1 SCC 103.

Comparative Citations:
2014 (4) LW 302, 2014 (3) MWN(Civil) 310,