Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that due to work out the equity as the petitioners are the purchaser of the land they can be made party. He further relied in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Khemchand Shankar Choudhari and Another versus Vishnu Hari Patil and Others reported in (1983) 1 SCC 18, and he refers to paragraph 6 of the said judgment which is as under :-

6. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act no doubt lays down that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in an immovable property which is the subject matter of a suit from any of the parties to the suit will be bound in so far as that interest is concerned by the proceedings in the suit. Such a transferee is a representative in interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. Rule 10 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly recognizes the right of a transferee to be impleaded 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 as a party and to be heard, he has got to be so impleaded and heard. He can also prefer an appeal against an order made in the said proceedings but with the leave of the appellate court where he is not already brought on record. The position of a person on whom any interest has devolved on account of a transfer during the pendency of any suit or a proceeding is somewhat similar to the position of an heir or a legatee of a party who dies during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding, or an official receiver who takes over the assets of such a party on his insolvency. An heir or a legatee or an official receiver or a transferee can participate in the execution proceedings even though their names may not have been shown in the decree, preliminary or final. If they apply to the court to be impleaded as parties they cannot be turned out. The Collector who has to effect partition of an estate under section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no doubt to divide it in accordance with the decree sent to him. But if a party to such a decree dies leaving some heirs about whose interest there is no dispute should he fold up his hands and return the papers to the civil court? He need not do so. He may proceed to allot the share of the deceased party to his heirs. Similarly, he may, when there is no dispute, allot the shares of a deceased party in favour of his legatees. In the case of insolvency of a party, the official receiver may be allotted the share of the insolvent. In the case of transferees pendente lite also, if there is no dispute, the Collector may proceed to make allotment of properties in an equitable manner instead of rejecting their claim for such equitable partition on the ground that they have no locus standi. A transferee from a party of a property which is the subject matter of partition can exercise all the rights of the transferor. There is no dispute that a party can ask for an equitable partition. A transferee from him, therefore, can also do so. Such a construction of section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure advances the cause of justice. Otherwise in every case where a party dies, or where a party is adjudicated as an insolvent or where he transfers some interest in the suit property pendente lite the matter has got to be referred back to the civil court even though there may be no dispute about the succession, devolution or transfer of interest. In any such case where there is no dispute if the Collector makes an equitable partition taking into consideration the interests of all concerned including those on whom any interest in the subject matter has devolved, he would neither be violating the decree nor transgressing any law. His action would not be ultra vires. On the other hand, it would be in conformity with the intention of the Legislature which has placed the work of partition of lands subject to payment of assessment to the Government in his hands to be carried out 'in accordance with the law (if any) for the time being in force relating to the partition or the separate possession of shares'.

13. It is an admitted position that the partition suit was instituted and the provision of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act is not in dispute, however, the transfer by way of registered deed is there and in light of that the Supreme Court in the Case of Dhanlakshmi and Others (supra) has been pleased to allow the petition considering that the property purchased by purchasers from the other co-sharers are entitled to come on the record in order to work out the equity in their favour in the final decree proceedings and in that case also at the final decree proceeding the said prayer was allowed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and that case was also arising out of the partition suit and identical was the situation in the case of Khemchand Shankar Choudhari (supra) relied by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the case was also arising out of the partition suit and in that case also Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that a transferee from a party of a property which is the subject matter of partition can exercise all the rights of the transferor. There is no dispute that a party can ask for an equitable partition and a transferee from him, therefore, can also do so.