1969 (3) TMI 97 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Suit for partition and injunction against property transfers
- Impleadment of petitioners as defendants
- Validity of property sale in violation of injunction order

Analysis:

1. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition claiming 1/3rd interest in the property, with defendants also claiming 1/3rd interest each. An injunction order was passed to prevent any property transfers during the suit. Despite this, defendant No. 1 transferred land to the petitioners, who sought to be impleaded as defendants. The Subordinate Judge initially dismissed their request to be added as parties.

2. The main contention in the revision was the impleadment of the petitioners as defendants. The Civil Procedure Code allows for the continuation of a suit in cases of assignment or devolution of interest with the court's permission. As the petitioners acquired properties from defendant No. 1, they should be allowed to safeguard their interests in the ongoing suit.

3. The sale to the petitioners was questioned due to the injunction order prohibiting transfers. The crucial issue was whether the sale in violation of the injunction was void or valid. If the sale was void, the petitioners would have no right to be added to the suit. However, if the sale was valid, the petitioners acquired an interest despite any issues with defendant No. 1's ownership.

4. The judgment analyzed legal precedents and concluded that a purchase in violation of an injunction order is not necessarily a nullity. The sale to the petitioners was deemed valid, granting them the right to be impleaded as defendants in the ongoing suit.

5. The respondent argued that the impleadment request was not pursued in the lower court. However, the judgment found no indication that the request was withdrawn, leading to the decision to allow the petitioners to be added as defendants.

6. The final ruling confirmed the rejection of the request for the petitioners' tenants to harvest the crop but allowed the petitioners to be impleaded as defendants. The Civil Revision was partially allowed, with each party bearing their own costs.

7. Additional directions were given regarding an interim stay and an inquiry into the harvesting of the crop by the petitioners. The court instructed the Subordinate Judge to address these matters if properly presented before him.