Sumesh Soni and Another vs Nirmal Singh and Others

K. Kannan, J.—The civil revisions are against the dismissal of applications for impleadment at the instance of a purchaser pendente lite from the plaintiff. The applications were filed in the Appellate Court from the decree holder, who had a 1/3rd share. The applications were contested not merely by the defendants in suit but by the vendor, Damodri herself. It appears that there is already a suit pending between the plaintiff and the purchaser where the validity of the sale in favour of the purchaser is an issue. The applications for impleadment was sought on the ground that the plaintiff and the defendants are close relatives, plaintiff being the widow of one of the brothers and his apprehension is that if there is any form of compromise where the plaintiff gives up her right, his own interest in the property will be seriously effected. In such an event, even if he is successful against the plaintiff in the suit filed by the latter against him, he will not be entitled to secure the benefit as purchaser nor can he use the succession suit against the other defendants who are contesting the plaintiffs claim for 1/3rd share.

The Court below rejected the applications stating that he is pendente purchaser and therefore, his rights cannot be protected u/s 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Here also the reasoning of the Court was that when the plaintiff herself has contested the sale, the purchaser cannot obtain an impleadment.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners points out to the evidence brought out at the time of trial where the plaintiff was conceded in the cross-examination that it was true that she has executed a sale in favour of the purchaser but the suit challenging the sale has been instituted against her wish. The counsel points out that if the sale itself is an admitted fact, the fact that there is a contest between the vendor and him ought not to be in any event be taken as prejudicial for the other defendants or even the plaintiff herself. All that he is interested in the present appeal is to ensure that his own vendor does not forsake the interest which she had in the property in favour of the defendants in order that his own right comes to naught. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that the impleadment cannot be ordered and reiterates the reasoning adopted by the Courts below.

I am of the view that presence of the purchaser in this case would accord to justice, for in the face of a statement recorded in Court that the suit filed by her against his purchaser was against her and the contest in the appeal that he ought not to be impleaded gives rise to a situation that if ever there is any compromise between the plaintiff and the defendants where she gives up her right in the property, it will have a very serious repercussion. In such an event, even a decree against the plaintiff in the independent suit between the plaintiff and the purchaser will not secure to him the benefit of such a decree, for it will be possible for all the other defendants to contend that decree between him and his vendor will not bind them. On the other hand, if he is brought on record, no prejudice could be caused, for the purchaser cannot be permitted to urge any point to the adverse interest of Damodri. His presence will only ensure that there is a genuine contest between the parties and that no right that could be preserved of Damodri is lost and the purchaser''s right in whatever manner it exists is not prejudiced till the final conclusion of their own proceedings in the suit between the plaintiff and the defendants. The applications ought to have been ordered and the Appellate Court has failed to exercise the discretion vested in it. I set aside the orders and allow the revision petitions. No costs.