Petitioners Claiming Rights Over Property, The Subject Matter Of Suit Are Necessary Parties: Karnataka HC Allows Impleadment Application
The Karnataka High Court noted that the Petitioners were asserting their rights over certain immovable properties that are the subject matter of the lawsuit. Therefore, the Court allowed the application for impleadment to avoid unnecessary delay and multiple proceedings.
The Court allowed the Petition, challenging the Order of the Trial Court, whereby the Court rejected the Petitioners' application to be added as Defendants in the suit instituted by Respondent no 5. The Petitioners also sought the Court's permission to submit an application for impleading.
Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil noted, “The petitioners herein are also claiming certain rights over the immovable properties which are subject matter of the present suit and for complete adjudication of the suit, petitioners herein are necessary parties in the present suit. The present application requires to be allowed to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings, waste of time of the parties. The application for impleading is to be allowed so that all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter so that the dispute may be determined in their presence at the same time without any protraction, inconvenience or multiplicity of proceedings. The present application requires to be allowed to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings, waste of time of the parties”.
Senior Advocate Vivek Subba Reddy appeared for the Petitioners, Advocate M. Erappa Reddy appeared for Respondent no 2, Advocate G.R. Lakshmipathy Reddy appeared for Respondent no 4, Advocate Latha S. Shetty appeared for Respondent no 7 and Advocate Chandrashekar P. Patil appeared for Respondent no 5.
Respondent no 5 had filed a case seeking a declaration that the partition deed was null and void and not applicable to her. She further sought a declaration that the September 6, 2012, sale deed was not binding on her. Furthermore, she sought a partition and separate possession of her 1/6th share in the listed properties by metes and bounds. During the suit, the Petitioners had filed an application under Order I Rule 10(a) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to be added as defendants no. 9 to 11 in the suit on the grounds that their rights and interests were involved in the immovable properties listed in the suit. However, the Trial Court had rejected their application. The aggrieved Petitioners approached the Court by way of a Writ Petition, challenging the Order of the Trial Court, rejecting their application to be added as Defendants in the suit instituted by Respondent no 5.
The Court noted that the Trial Court held that the Applicants had already filed a comprehensive lawsuit for partitioning the family properties of N Ramaiah Reddy's legal heirs, which included the Plaintiff and Defendants Nos.1 to 5 and hence held that the Applicants were not necessary parties in this case.
However, the Court noted that the findings of the Trial Court were contrary to the established legal principles since the Petitioners claimed certain rights over the immovable properties that are the subject matter of this case. Therefore, the Petitioners are necessary parties in the suit. The Court observed that it was essential for all parties involved in the dispute to be determined simultaneously to avoid multiple proceedings and unnecessary delays. Therefore, the Court allowed the application for impleading to ensure a complete adjudication of the matter without any inconvenience or prolonged legal proceedings.
“The trial Court has recorded the finding that the petitioners have already instituted a comprehensive suit seeking partition in the family properties of the legal heirs of Sri.N.Ramaiah Reddy by arraying the present plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 as parties, hence they are not necessary parties in the present suit. In my considered view, the finding recorded by the trial Court is contrary to settled position of law and facts”, the Court noted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and set aside the impugned order.
Cause Title: Smt N G Girija v Sarojamma
