Third Party who filed an impleadment application as LA. No. 21 of 1999 in OS. No. 292 of 1983 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, is the revision petitioner. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in that suit.
2. 7th defendant in the suit sold the property Plot No. 6 with buildings to the petitioner on 23-12-1991. It is the case of the petitioner herein that 7th defendant purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 4-7-1983 from its original owner S.R. Krishnasamy Iyangar (first defendant in the suit). After purchase, petitioner herein | has put up further constructions. It is her case that at the time when she purchased the property, she was not aware of the litigation. It is said that her vendors did not inform her about the alleged grant of patta in favour of plaintiff-Temple under Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 She beings a bona fide purchaser for value without notice during the pendency of the suit, she should be impleaded in the suit.
3. Counter affidavit was filed contending that the sale deed in favour of both Marudhachalam and petitioner herein are hit by the principle of lis pendens and, therefore, petitioner herein is not a necessary party, and she need not be impleaded. The suit has already been instituted against proper and necessary parties. Therefore, the presence of the petitioner herein is not necessary.
4. By the impugned order, the lower Court dismissed the application holding that the application is belated, and also on the ground that the sale in favour of petitioner herein is hit by the principle of lis pendens.
5. Respondent had also entered appearance through Counsel, and, therefore, by consent of learned Counsel on both sides, I heard the Revision itself for final disposal, at the time when it came up for admission.
6. According to me, the order of the lower Court is not correct in view of a recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (1999) 2 SCC 577 1999 3 L.W. 277 ( Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gprakhpur and others ), wherein a similar question has been considered by their Lordships. Paragraphs 9 to 11 of the judgment are relevant for our purpose and they read thus:—
"Order I, Rule 10, CPC, enables the Court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision in the Code."
In Khimchand Shankar Choudhari v. Vishnu Hari Patil this Court held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in an immovable property which is the subject-matter of a suit is a representative in the interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest and has a right to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. The Court has taken note of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and as well as the provisions of Rule 10 of Order 13, CPC. The Court said: (SCC p. 21, Para 6)
"It may be that if he does not apply to be impleaded, he may suffer by default on account of any order passed in the proceedings. But if he applies to be impleaded as a party and to be heard, he has got to be so impleaded and heard."
In Ramesh Hirachand Kumdammal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay this Court discussed the matter at length and held that though the plaintiff is a “dominus litus” and not bound to sue every possible adverse claimant in the same suit, the Court may at any stage of the suit direct addition of parties and generally it is a matter of judicial discretion which is to be exercised in “view of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The Court said: (SCC p. 529, Para 8)”
7. The case really turns on the true construction of the rule in particular the meaning of the words
"whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit:"
"The Court is empowered to join a person whose presence is necessary for the prescribed purpose and cannot under the sale direct the addition of a person whose presence is not necessary for that purpose. If the intervenor has a cause of action against the plaintiff relating to the subject-matter of the existing action, the Court has power to join the intervenor so as to give effect to the primary object of the Order which is to avoid multiplicity of actions."
The Court also observed that though prevention of actions cannot be said to be the main object of the Rule, it is a desirable consequence of the Rule. The test for impleading parties prescribed in Razia Begum v. Sahebeadi Anwar Begum that the person concerned must be having a direct “interest in the action was reiterated by the Bench.”
In the above said decision, Their Lordships followed an earlier decision reported in (1983) 3 SCC 18 = 1999 3 L.W. 277 Khimchand Shankar Choudhari v. Vishnu N. Patil ), wherein, in paragraph 6, it was held thus :—
"Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act no doubt lays down that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in an immovable property which is the subject matter of a suit from any of the parties to the suit will be bound in so far as that interest is concerned by the proceedings in the suit. Such a transferee is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest.
Rule 10 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly recognises the right of a transferee to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings and to be heard before any order is made . "It may be that if he does not apply to be impleaded, he may suffer by default on account of any order passed in the proceedings. But if he applies to be impleaded as a party and to be heard, he has got to be so impleaded and heard." He can also prefer an appeal against an order made in the said proceedings but with the leave of the appellate Court where he is not already brought on record. The position of a person on whom any interest has devolved on account of a transfer during the pendency of any sui t or a proceeding is somewhat similar to the position of an heir or a legatee of a party who dies during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding, or an Official Receiver who takes over the assets of such a party on his insolvency. An heir or a legatee or an Official Receiver or a transferee can participate in the execution proceedings even though their names may not have been shown in the decree, preliminary or final. If they apply to the Court to be impleaded as parties they cannot be turned out."
In the aforesaid case, Their Lordships have also held in the same paragraph that ‘A transferee from a party of a property which is the subject-matter of partition can exercise all the rights of the transferor.’
8. But, what are his rights? It is clear from the decision reported in (1983) 1 SCC 18 (Supra) that the transferee is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired an interest, and the right to get impleadment is only on the basis of an assignment.
9. In one of the earliest decisions of our High Court reported in AIR 1920 Madras 391 ( Veera Raghava v. Subba Reddi ), their Lordships of a Special Bench held thus:—
"Under Or. 22, Rr. 10 and 11, a transferee Pendente lite is entitled to come on record and to conduct all proceedings from the date he is added as a party,
though he is bound by all orders passed up to that date and cannot raise defences not open to his transferor ."
(Emphasis)
The said decision of our High Court was followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the decision reported in A.I.R. 1975 Punjab and Haryana 448 ( Bakshawar Singh v. Nirmal Singh ). In paragraph 10 of the judgment, it has been held thus: (Head note)
"Assumption, that if the petitioner were allowed to be added as party further complications would arise as he might raise some other pleas, is also incorrect. No complications can arise on impleading the petitioner as a party, because he cannot raise any defence not open to his transferor; besides he would be bound by all orders passed till then"
.
10. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the order of the lower Court is set aside, and petitioner herein in directed to be impleaded as additional defendant in the suit. I make it clear that all orders passed till date in the suit are binding on the petitioner herein and the same are not liable to be reopened. Petitioner is entitled to participate in the proceedings from this stage. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. C.P. No. 11732 of 1999 is closed.
S.S. SUBRAMANI, J.
Being a suit of 1983, I am sure that the lower Court will take expeditious steps in disposing of the case without any further delay. I direct the lower Court to dispose of the same on or before 31-12-1999 and report compliance.