PANKAJKUMAR Vs. VIJAYALAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned petition is filed by defendant No.10/purchaser assailing the order of the learned Judge passed on an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment of written statement. The said application is rejected. Therefore, defendant No.10 is before this court.

(2.) Respondent No.1 has initiated a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.394/2013. The present petitioner claims that he has purchased the property from defendant No. 1. To demonstrate that he is bonafide purchaser, petitioner has filed present amendment application and sought to incorporate one para indicating that he has purchased the property after issuing public notice, which is evident from Annexure-L.

(3.) On examination of the material on record and having regard to the fact that petitioner being the purchaser of an undivided interest, I am not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. It is a trite law that in a partition suit, the stranger purchaser has no say and he will come into picture while drawing up of final decree when he would step into his vendor's shoes and while drawing up of final decree, the stranger/purchaser has to workout his equitable rights in final decree proceedings. In a partition suit, the plea of bonafide purchaser is not available. However, sale deed executed by father of the plaintiff in favour of present petitioner will be subject to determination of share and sale deed will be held to be valid to the extent of his vendor's legitimate share. The proposed amendment is of no consequence and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge.