Purchaser Pendente Lite Of A Property Which Is Subject Matter Of A Partition Suit Can Also Seek Equitable Partition: Karnataka KC
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a purchaser pendente lite of a property which is subject matter of partition suit can also seek equitable partition.
The Bench allowed an application filed by a purchaser pendente lite (petitioner) seeking to implead him as a party in the final decree proceedings concerning a partition suit. The petitioner challenged an order rejecting the petitioner's application to be impleaded as a respondent in the final decree proceedings.
A Single Bench of Justice R. Nataraj observed, “The petitioner contends that the property now claimed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 encompasses the property purchased by him from the defendant No.1. In support of the same he placed on record the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1…Therefore, even if it is assumed that the petitioner is a purchaser pendente lite and even if he is treated to be not a bonafide purchaser, yet since the sale is brought about by the defendant No.1 in favour of petitioner, the final decree Court is bound to work out equity in favour of the petitioner.”
Advocate Muniyappa represented the petitioner, while Advocate Nagesh S. appeared for the respondents.
The Court clarified that even if the petitioner were assumed to be a purchaser pendente lite and not a bona fide purchaser, the final decree Court was still bound to work out equity in the petitioner's favour, as the sale was executed by the opposite party.
“If the final decree Court is of the opinion that there are no other properties, where the petitioner cannot be accommodated, then it is open for the petitioner to take such other measures as are available in law. However, if final decree Court is of the opinion that the properties that are sold by respondent No.4 could be appropriated against his share, the final decree Court is bound to consider the claim of the petitioner,” the Court remarked.
The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Khemchand Shankar Choudhari v. Vishnu Patil (AIR 1983 SC 124) which supported the right of a transferee pendente lite to be heard in partition suits.
Consequently, the Court allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC and the petitioner was permitted to be impleaded as respondent before final decree Court.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Sri. Naganaika v. Sri. G.H. Ajay & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:13691)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Muniyappa
Respondents: Advocates Nagesh S., S. Anil Kumar, and Vinayaka B
