MARIRUDRAIAH & ORS. versus B. SAROJAMMA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 491 · Decided: 02-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
[2009] 5 S.C:R. 491 
MARIRUDRAIAH & ORS. 
v. 
B. SAROJAMMA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2138 of 2009) 
APRIL 2, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA 
AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - lmpleadment of 
Pendente lite purchaser and direction to work out equity in his C 
favour - Propriety of - Suit for partition - Pendentelite 
purchase of a portion of suit property - lmpleadment of 
purchasers at appellate stage - Suit decreed as per terms of 
compromise - High Court at the instance of purchasers 
directing the trial court to work out equity in their favour by D 
allotting them the suit property and paying compensation to 
the vendor and the co-sharers who were not party to the sale-
deed - Held: Propriety of impleadment order cannot be 
disturbed - However, direction to work out equity not 
sustainable - Purchasers were since impleaded during 
E · 
pendency of final decree proceedings, all the issues 
relegated in pending final decree proceedings - Courts are 
not supposed to encourage pendentelite transactions and 
regularize such conduct by sharing equity in favour of such 
purchaser - Equity. 
F 
In a suit for partition, preliminary decree was granted. 
The same was challenged in appeal. During pendency 
thereof, respondents 8 and 9 (pendentelite purchasers of 
suit item No. 9), were impleaded as respondents in the 
appeal. The issue in suit was closed by recording G 
compromise between the parties before High Court 
whereby the parties agreed to the partition. Thereafter, on 
the application by the purchasers-respondents, High 
Court directed trial court to work out equity in favour of 
491 
H 
I 
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 5 S. C.R. 
A the purchasers by allotting them suit item No. 9 in their 
favour and to compensate the plaintiffs and other sharers 
who were not parties to the sale-deed in the final decree 
proceedings. 
8 
In appeal to this court, the questions for 
, 
consideration were: (1) whether High Court was justified 
in impleading the purchasers pendentelite as party 
respondents in the appeal, and (2) whether High Court 
was justified in issuing direction for allotment of suit item 
C No. 9 in favour of purchasers and for payment of 
compensation to other sharers. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. In view of the fact that respondent-
D purchasers purchased item No.9 of the suit property from 
respondent No. 1 and others who are sharers, the order 
of the High Court impleading them as respondents in the 
proceedings cannot be disturbed. [Para 8] [495-G-H; 496-
A] 
E 
2. However, direction for payment of compensation 
to the plaintiff and others and working out equity are set 
aside. When the purchasers approached the High Court 
for their impleadment and for directions, final decree 
proceeding was pending before the trial Court. 
F Respondent-purchasers purchased item No.9 from the 
first respondent pendente lite. In fact, the courts are not 
sups;,osed to encourage pendente lite transactions and 
regularize their conduct by showing equity in their 
favour. In such circumstances, it is proper to relegate all 
G the issues in the final decree proceedings which is 
pending before the trial Court. [Paras 8 and 9] [496-C-E] 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2138 of 2009. 
" -r 
MARIRUDRAIAH & ORS. v. 8. SAROJAMMA & ORS. 
493 
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.06.2006 and the 
A 
subsequent order dated 17.6.2006 of the High Court of 
Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No.207 of 
2003. 
> 
Naveen R. Nath, Lalit Mohan Bhat, Hetu Arora and A 
B 
Dashrath, for the Appellants. 
Krishna Mani, B. Vishwanath Bhandarkar, V.N. 
Raghupathy, M.N. Uma Shankar and B.S. Sharma for the 
Respondents. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted. 
• 
f 
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and 
orders dated 15.06.2006 and 17.06.2006 passed by the High 
D 
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No. 
207 of 2003. 
3. Regular First Appeal No. 207 of 2003 was filed under 
Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code before the High Court 
E 
of Karnataka against the judgment and decree dated 
25.10.2002 passed in O.S. No. 8252 of 1998 by the XXll 
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore granting 
preliminary decree in a suit for partition and separate 
--
~ 
possession. In the said appeal, applicants-Suresh Salariya and 
F 
V. Mohammed Shaffiulla of Bangalor

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