Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. I will first consider the revision under Section 115, C.P.C. filed by 24th defendant, who has been additionally impleaded.

12. The main grievance of the petitioner in these revisions is, even though he may be a purchaser pending litigation of a partition suit, he is also entitled to be heard when the rights of some of the sharers have come to him. It is his case that with him on the party array, there had been adjudication regarding the validity of the auction sale and what is his share. When the plaintiffs' rights have also been declared, they cannot get it modified so as to affect his rights. At least as an assignee of defendant 1 to 3, he is entitled to be heard, since he has been substituted in their place. It is further contended that what the plaintiffs wanted was, modification of the preliminary decree due to change of circumstances. They wanted to implead additional parties as if their father had left the property intestate. On the date of his death, all his rights have already vested with the auction purchaser, and when other persons are impleaded he is entitled to oppose their claim, for which he is a necessary party. Without serving notice on him, some orders have been obtained by plaintiffs, which have prejudiced his rights over the property.

24. Taking into consideration the interest of justice and also to shorten the litigation, and since learned senior counsel for both sides submitted the entire facts, I pass the following order:

The preliminary decree, declaring one half right to three plaintiffs has to stand. Even though the second plaintiff has been transposed as a defendant, the benefit of the decree cannot be denied to him. In A.S.No. 387 of 1987, the Division Bench has unequivocally held that the order of adjudication passed by this Court in the insolvency proceedings has the effect of vesting the joint family properties with the Official Assignee and the latter had no right whatsoever to sell the shares of plaintiffs and other sons of first defendant who were not adjudicated. If so merely because of the transposition of second plaintiff as a defendant, it will not make any change in the preliminary decree. It cannot be disputed that it is only the insolvents right, title and interest in the property that has been sold by the Official Assignee. The second plaintiff has also attained the status of division on before the adjudication. So, his position is also that of plaintiffs 1 and 3. merely because he did not join in filing the subsequent suit that will not make the position different. While passing the final decree, one half share in schedule A will be allotted only to plaintiffs 1 and 3 and the second plaintiff transposed as a defendant and if the plaintiffs 1 and 3 take possession of that share, it will be for the benefit of the transposed plaintiff also. The auction purchaser will not get any right of the second plaintiff. The preliminary decree even now stands and there is no variation. Likewise, by the death of defendants 1 and 3 also, there is no change or variation in the shares since the same has already vested with the auction purchaser, He is entitled to the remaining half. The property will have to be divided into two equal halves, and either party may apply to the court below, for passing of final decree and also for the appointment of an Advocate-Commission for suggesting the mode of division. There is no necessity to proceed with any of the interim applications which are the subject-matter of these revision petitions, including I.A.No. 9969 of 1988, since I find that there is no change in the shares and there is also no necessity to pass any revised or additional preliminary decree.