KHEMCHAND SHANKAR CHOUDHARY AND ANOTHER versus VISHNU HARI PATIL AND OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 1 S.C.R. 898 · Decided: 03-12-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
898 
KHEMCHAND SHANKAR CHOUDHARY 
AND AN0THER 
v. 
VISHNU HARI PATIL AND OTHERS 
l 
December 3, 1982 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, Section'54, Scope of-"In accordance with the 
law (I/ any) for the time being in force relating to the partition.or the separate 
possession of shares", meaning of-Whether the transftreeJ 11pendente lite" for 
partition of parts of an estate assessed to payment of land revenue to the Govern-
ment have a locus standi to appear before the Revenue authorities-Transfer of 
Proflerty Act, Sectlo!J 52 read with Rule Jq of Order XX/I Civil Procedure Code. 
One ~atu, in his suit filed· in 1940- against his nephew Laxman for 
partition of the joint family propertY and for separate possession of bis half share 
obtained a decree in his favour. The total area of.the lands to ·be divided is 108 
acres. Na tu and his four sons assigned on August 22, 1945, 3/8th share in decree 
obtained by them in favour of Prem Chand Patil. Prem Chand filed a Special 
Civil Suit No. 67 of 1950, for partition of his assigned share in the decree. ·In 
that suit, a compromise ·decree was passed providing that if the sons of Natu 
paid Rs. 30,000 on or before March i, 1958, then the decree-holder would not 
be entitled to clairri any partition and in default he should get .Possession of 
the share claimed by him. The sons of Natu committed default and Prem 
Ch3.nd Patil became entitled to partition of 3{8th share of 108 acres of land. Prem 
Chand Patil, however assigned his decree in favour of Vishnu Hari Patil, 
respondent No. 1, who started the execution proceedings, under section 54 of 
the Code of Civil Procedure under which the lands in respect of which assessriient 
was payable to the Government had to be divided by the Collector and the 
parties bad to be put in possession of their respective shares. During the 
pendency of these proceedings, the appe!Jants purchased from the sons of Natu 
who were parties to the suit five fields out of these 108 
acres~four through 
·private sales and one by court aucfioO-and wer.e in possession of the said fields, 
having acquired title thereto. These fields were allotted by tbe Collector in 
favour.of ReSpondent No. 1 as part of his 3/Sth share without giving any consi-
deration to tb,e claims _of the appellants for equitable partition. The appellants 
challena;ed the validity of the partition proceedings before the Com01issioner. 
Bombay Division. The appeal was dismissed on the .ground that the appellants 
had.no locus standt to ask for an equitable allotment under section 54 Code of 
Civil Procedure, as their names did not figure in the decree even though the sales 
in their favour were not in dispute. The further appeaJS before the .State Govern-
ment as well as the Writ Petitions file.d ~efore the Bombay High Court also failed. 
Hence the appeals by special leave. 
""J: 
·.· 
' 
. 't---
\ 
), . 
i<:HEMCHAND v. VISHNU PATIL 
899 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD ~ 1.1. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, .no doubt, lays 
down that a transferee, pendente lite or an interest in an immovable pfoperty 
Which is the subject-matter of a suit from any of the parties to the suii will .be 
bound in so far as that interest is concerned .bY the proceedings in the sujt. ·Such 
a transferee is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired· 
that interest. [902 E-F] 
1:2. A transferee from 
party of a property whicfl .is the subject 
matter of pai"tition can exercise aU the rights of a transferor. When a party can 
ask for an .equitiible p3rtifion, a transferee fr<?m him, therefore, can -also qo so. 
(903 D-E] 
2:1. Rule 10 of order XXII of the Code of .Civil Procedure clearly 
recognises the right of a transferee to be ioipleaded 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 and heard he can also prefer 
an appeal against a~ order made in the said -proceedings bllt with the leave of 
the appelJate court, where he is not already bro'ugbt on record. [902 PG-] 
2:1.. The position of a person on whom any interest bas devolved on 
account of a transfer during the pendency of an'y ·suit pr proceeding is some what 
similar to.the position of an hefr or a legatee of a party who dies during the 
pendency 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.