LexSAVITRI DEVI versus DISTRICT JUDGE, GORAKHPUR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
). SA VITRI DEVI A v. DISTRICT JUDGE, GORAKHPUR AND ORS. FEBRUARY 18, 1999 (DR. A.S. ANAND, 0., M. SRINIVASAN AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] B Code of Civil procedure 1908, 0.1 R. JO r/w s.151-Necessary and proper parties to suit-Appellant-plaintiff filing suit for maintenance-By con- sent interim order passed restraining her sons from alienating suit proper- ty-Thereafter first defendant selling one fourth suit property each to c respondents 3 to 5-fl.espondents 3 to 5 applying to get impleaded as parties to suit-Plaintiff resisting impleadment on ground that sales were in violatio11 of cowt order and therefore void-Trial Judge allowing application-District Coult and High Coult affirming order and holding Respondents 3 to 5 were necessary and proper parties to suit-Held, 011 facts, to avoid multiplicity of D proceedings, impleadment of respondents 3 to 5 was wa"anted. )" The appellant plaintiff filed a civil suit against her four sons for a decree of maintenance and for creation of a charge over the ancestral property of the family. By consent of parties, civil court passed an int~rim order directing parties not to transfer the suit property in favour of any E person till disposal of the suit. Thereafter the first defendant sold one fourth share of three parcels of land comprising the suit property each to Respondents 3 to 5 by registered sale deeds. Respondents 3 to 5 then applied to the civil court for being impleaded as parties to the suit. The plaintiff resisted this on the F )- ground that the sales were in breach of the order of injunction and that the transferees got no valid title to the suit properties. The trial court allowed the applif.ation of Respondents 3 to 5 and directed them to be fmp~ded as parties to the suit. The District Court in revision and the High Court in a further writ petition filed by the appellant upheld the order of the trial court_ G Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : Respondents 3 to 5 were necessary and proper parties to the suit and their impleadment was warranted. Avoidance of multiplicity of H 725 726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] l S.C.R. A proceedings was one of the objects of order I Rule 10 CPC and if the -" application for impleadment was thrown out Respondents 3 to 5 would certainly come up with a separate suit to enforce their alleged rights. [728-G] Khemchand Shankar Choudhmi v. Vishnu Hari Patil, [1983] 1 SCC B 18; Ramesh Hiracliand Kundanmal v. Municipal C01poration of Greater Bombay, [1992] 2 SCC 524; Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, [1959] SCR 1111 and Swjit Singh v. Harbal's Singh, [1995] 6 SCC 50, referred to. c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 932 of 1999. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.97 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 33123 of 1997. Rajesh Tyagi and Praveen Jain for the Appellant. D B.L Yadav and Ms. Sandhya Goswami for the Respondents Nos. 3-5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SRINIVASAN, J. Leave granted. E 2. The appellant has filed a civil suit bearing No. 1586/92 in the Court of Munsif, Gorakhpur against her four sons for a decree for maintenance and for creation of a charge over the ancestral property of the family. The suit was filed on 14.8.92 and was fixed for hearing on 31.8.92. She applied for an interim order of injunction restraining her sons from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit. But on 18.8.92, a Vakalat was F filed on .behalf of the defendants and 4th defendant also filed an affidavit in the Court purporting to be on behalf of the defendants. The counsel appearing for the parties expressed their consent before the Court that during the pendency of the case the parties could be directed not to sell the suit property to any third person. In the light of the consent of the G counsel, the Court passed an order on that date directing the parties not to transfer the disputed property described in the plaint in favour of any other person till the final disposal of the suit. . 3. On 19.8.1992 the first defendant sold his I/4th share in one of the lands to the third respondent and 1/4th share in another land to the 4th H respondent. On 27.8.92 he sold 1/4th share in yet another land to the 5th SAVITRIDEVI v. DISTT.JUDGE[SRINIVASAN,J.] 727 respondent. All the three sales were by registered sale deeds. On 1.1.93 A respondents 3 to 5 filed an application before the trial Court under Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.