WP/49903/2019 of SMT. PADMAVATHI B K Vs SRI. V SAMPANGI on 19 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed by defendant No.4, calling in question the order dated 21.09.2019 passed by the learned Trial Judge on I.A.Nos.10 and 11, whereby the applications filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment of the proposed defendant No.6, stated to be a pendente lite purchaser, and for a direction to the proposed defendant No.6 to produce the documents pertaining to item No.3 of the suit schedule property, came to be rejected.

2. The case of the petitioner before the learned Trial Court was that the plaintiffs had alienated their alleged half share in item No.3 of the suit schedule property and, therefore, the purchaser was a necessary party to the pending partition suit. The plaintiffs contested the applications by filing their objections and specifically denied having alienated any portion of the suit schedule

Verified

HC-KAR

properties. The learned Trial Judge, having considered the rival contentions, rejected both the applications.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff. Perused the records.

4. What is rather disturbing is that the petitioner, who is defendant No.4, sought impleadment of a proposed defendant on the premise that the plaintiffs had alienated a portion of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs, in their objections, have categorically denied the alleged alienation. Except for the assertion made by the petitioner, no credible material is placed on record to establish that the plaintiffs have, in fact, alienated their alleged half share in item No.3 of the suit schedule property. Notwithstanding the rejection of the applications by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner has obtained an interim order from this Court and, consequently, the proceedings in the partition suit have remained stalled since 2019.

Verified

HC-KAR

It is well settled that a stranger claiming through an alienation of an undivided interest in joint family property does not, merely by reason of such alienation, become a necessary party to a partition suit. The principal issue in a partition suit is determination of the subsisting rights and shares of the coparceners/co-sharers having a pre-existing right in the property. The rights of a purchaser claiming through one of the parties can ordinarily be worked out in accordance with law.

5. In the present case, the petitioner seeks impleadment of the alleged purchaser as a pendente lite purchaser. A pendente lite purchaser cannot claim a better right or status merely on account of the purchase having been effected during the pendency of the suit. Such a transaction is governed by the doctrine of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Consequently, even assuming that there has been an alienation by the plaintiff during the pendency of the

Verified

HC-KAR

suit, such alienation, by itself, does not render the purchaser a necessary party for adjudication of the partition between the parties, who possess the pre-existing rights.

6. In the absence of any cogent or credible material establishing the alleged alienation of the plaintiffs’ half share in item No.3, the learned Trial Judge was justified in declining to implead the proposed defendant No.6 and in rejecting the connected application seeking production of documents. No jurisdictional error or perversity is demonstrated in the impugned order warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. What is more significant is that the suit is one for partition and has remained pending for several years. The record indicates that the proceedings have been stalled since 2019 on account of the interim order obtained by the petitioner, even though the matter had reached the stage

Verified

HC-KAR

of arguments. A partition suit, involving determination of the rights and shares of the parties, cannot be permitted to be unnecessarily protracted on the basis of an impleading application founded on an unsubstantiated allegation of alienation.

8. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner must bear the consequences of unnecessarily protracting the proceedings.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs.15,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner to the legal heirs of the original plaintiff on the next date of hearing before the learned Trial Court.

The learned Trial Judge shall now proceed with the suit expeditiously. The learned counsel appearing for the parties shall address their fresh arguments, whereafter the learned Trial Judge shall proceed to pronounce judgment in accordance with law.

Verified

HC-KAR

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the pending partition suit or on the rights and shares claimed by the respective parties.

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Verified