RANCHI, India, Oct. 22 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Sept. 22:

1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the instant civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 22.04.2024 passed in Original Suit No. 68 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has been allowed impleading opposite party nos. 4 and 5 in the suit.

2. Plaintiffs/petitioners filed the suit mainly for the following reliefs:

i. A declaration that Plot Nos. 601, 602 and 603 of Mouza Sitakata (Karmatanr), PS Karmatanr, District Jamtara and all the old house and structures standing thereon were the joint properties of the plaintiffs and defendant no. 3, Ashima Mallick and others and no particular portion of the above property was owned exclusively by any of them;

ii. A further declaration that Sale Deed No. 193 and 194 both dated 12.11.2020 were null and void, mala-fide and illegal;

iii. Cancellation of the above mentioned two registered sale deeds iv. Mandatory injunction restraining defendant nos. 1 and 2 from entering into possession of the property covered by two impugned sale deeds as mentioned above.

3. Opposite party nos. 4 and 5 filed an intervener application on 04.03.2022 claiming right, title and interest over the suit property by way of inheritance. It has been contended that Khatiyan No. 32/7 was recorded in the name of Gulab Ray Marwari @ Ghutghutia and the petitioners were heirs and descendants of the recorded tenant.

4. Learned Trial Court allowed the petition on the ground that the petitioners have also produced Parcha in support of their averments with regard to the claim of title over the property. They were accepted as proper parties and, therefore, they were impleaded.

5. Objection to impleadment is mainly two folds:

Firstly, it is submitted that the petitioners have not claimed any relief against opposite party nos. 4 and 5.

Secondly, it is submitted that earlier a title suit was filed by the predecessor-in-interest namely, Mahendra Nath Sreemany, against Gulab Ray Marwari @ Ghutghutia, through which the present opposite party nos. 4 and 5 claim their right, title and interest over the suit property. The said suit was decreed in favour of the predecessor-ininterest of the plaintiffs and it attained finality on dismissal of revision reported in 1934 SCC OnLine Pat 168 (Gulab Ray Ghutghutia Vs. Mahendra Nath Sreemany). After the finality with respect to the matter, opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are intermeddling in the suit property in which they have no rightful claim. On the principle of impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, reliance is placed on 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1234 (Sudhamayee Pattnaik & Ors. Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo & Ors.) (Para 11) and (2020) 13 SCC 773 (Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs. Kiran Kant Robinson & Ors.) (Para 5.2).

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the intervenerapplicants/opposite party nos. 4 and 5 that the present suit has been filed for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property on which the intervener applicants have title and possession and, therefore, any decision in this case is likely to impinge the rights of these intervener applicants.

7. It is contended that the suit is proceeding ex-parte against defendant nos. 1 to 3. Relief for cancellation of sale deeds is consequential, whereas the declaration of title over the suit property is the main reliefs.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqO2cx92P%2Bj1x6cv1PQAZv9vjA6grB849aCjG0bDGJCOw&caseno=C.M.P./550/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010184542024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.