Bombay High Court dismisses a petition under Sec. 127, MRTP Act for unreasonable delay
Title: Shri. Parag Prakash Mutha v. Kashinath Barku Bhalsingh & Ors
Decided on: 18.08.2023
WRIT PETITION NO. 662 OF 2023
CORAM: CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Facts of the Case
The case revolves around a land dispute. The said property was Gat No.570/2 situated at Village- Kolwadi, Taluka-Haveli, District-Pune was originally owned by one Shri. Laxman Bhairu Bhole and others. The same was purchased by Shri. Kashinath Barku Bhalsingh by way of registered sale-deed dated 23 September 1986. Later he sold the suit to Petitioner-Plaintiff by way of registered sale-deed dated 26 November 1992. Petitioner-Plaintiff claims that he was put in vacant and peaceful possession of the suit land.
By way of registered sale-deed dated 3 October 2018, the legal representatives of Shri. Kashinath Barku Bhalsingh sold the suit land in the name of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The petitioner filed a case seeking to declare him as the true owner, however, he later entered into a compromise agreement with the respondents where he decided to give up his rights in respect of the suit land for consideration of Rs.80 Lacs.
After finding out about this compromise deal, the parents of the petitioner, filed another suit that the suit property was actually purchased by the Father of the petitioner in the petitioner’s name when he was merely 11 years old at that time and that the suit was also instituted by the family in the name of Petitioner-plaintiff, as the sale-deed stood in his name. The Petitioner agreed to gift various properties (including the suit property) in the name of his mother and for that purpose executed a Power of Attorney in father’s name; before the gift-deed of the suit property could be executed, Petitioner-plaintiff surreptitiously entered into compromise deed.
Issues
Whether Respondent no. 5 and 6 can be parties to the current suit?
Contentions:
The Petitioner contends that Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are not necessary parties to the suit. That Suit filed by Petitioner-Plaintiff does not and cannot involve the issue of ownership by Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the suit property and that the impleadment application is filed with the ulterior objective of frustrating such a compromise. Addition of them, will change the nature of the suit.
The Respondents contended that they are the true owners of the property and that the suit is a family decision only in the petitioner’s name. The property was purchased with the father’s money and therefore, he is a necessary party
Decision:
The case pleaded by them in their impleadment application is altogether different. The impleadment is sought on twin premises, firstly that the father purchased the property in the name of Petitioner-plaintiff and therefore father is the real owner. Therefore, mere avoidance of multiplicity of litigation could not have been a reason to direct impleadment of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as parties to the suit as their entry not only creates complication in the suit but changes its very nature and creates complications in the pending suit. The Trial Court has not considered all these aspects while passing the impugned order, which suffers from various infirmities as discussed above. As a result, the impugned order dated 10 January 2022 passed by the Trial Court was set aside.
The petition was allowed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law
