While Drawing A Preliminary Decree, Purchaser Of Undivided Interest Has No Say In Partition Suit: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench has held that while drawing a preliminary decree, a purchaser of undivided interest has no say in the partition suit. It was dealing with a writ petition seeking to quash an order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge.
A Single Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “It is quite strange to know that petitioner who is purchaser of undivided interest who has no locus in a partition suit has ventured in challenging the order passed on amendment application. While drawing a preliminary decree, a stranger-purchaser has no say in the suit. Merely because, he is impleaded in the suit, will not give a right to him to dictate as to how the suit has to be proceeded with.”
The Bench added that his rights, if any, in an undivided interest has to be worked out in final decree proceedings.
Advocate Chetan T. Limbikai appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Advocates Sachin C. Angadi and H.N. Doddamani appeared on behalf of the respondents.
In this case, the writ petition was filed by the purchaser (defendant) against the order of the Courts below, wherein plaintiffs’ application seeking amendment of plaint to include the left-out properties as indicated by defendants was allowed and plaintiffs were permitted to include the other properties. The said order was challenged by the purchaser and the suit was one for partition and separate possession.
The defendants took a stand that the plaintiffs did not include all the properties and therefore, suit for partial partition was not maintainable. In the light of the defence set-up by defendants, plaintiffs by way of amendment sought leave of the Court to include all the properties.
The High Court in the above context noted, “The judgment cited by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of Sri H.K.Manjunath Vs Sri Ramesh Kumar in W.P.No.21717/2021(GM-CPC), decided on 06.04.2022, is not applicable to the present case on hand.”
The Court observed that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on two grounds i.e., firstly, the order under challenge is in accordance with law and secondly, the petitioner being a stranger-purchaser could not have knocked the door of the court.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title- Vinayak v. Gadigevva @ Neelavva & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:KHC-D:8229)