PHILOMENA Vs. VINCENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the intervener who sought her impleadment in the suit which learned Munsiff has rejected by Ext.P4, order. Respondent No.1, son of petitioner has filed O.S.No.228 of 2009 in the court of learned Additional Munsiff-II, Ernakulam for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain respondent Nos.2 to 4 transferring the suit property (of which respondent No.2 is the allottee). Petitioner claimed that she has been staying with respondent No.1 and others but of late, on account of harassment of respondent No.1 she had to withdraw from the house. Respondent No.1 is trying to get allotment of the suit property to him from respondent No.4, the GCDA. Hence she wanted her to be impleaded as additional defendant in the suit claiming that she is a necessary party to the litigation. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 had no counter but the application was opposed by respondent No.1. He asserted that petitioner has nothing to do with the property. Property originally belonged to respondent No.4. Respondent No.3 was the allottee under respondent No.4. Respondent No.3 assigned his right to respondent No.2 who in turn assigned that right to respondent No.1 for a consideration of Rs.65,000/- of which Rs.25,000/- was paid as advance at the time of agreement. Later a further sum of Rs.15,000/- was also paid. Learned Munsiff held that petitioner has not shown that she has any interest in the suit property and hence she cannot be impleaded as a party to the suit. Learned counsel contends that finding of the learned Munsiff is not correct and that petitioner is either a necessary or atleast a proper party to the suit. Learned counsel placed reliance on Ext.P1, report prepared by respondent No.4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 contends that Ext.P1 is only a report prepared for the purpose of personal hearing regarding the dispute.

(2.) I have gone through Ext.P1 and find nothing in it showing that petitioner has any interest in the suit property. On the other hand, petitioner is described in Ext.P1 as a person who wished to get assignment of the property. Ext.P1 also does not say that petitioner is owner of the property. Hence Ext.P1 is of no assistance to the claim now set up by petitioner.

(3.) Respondent No.1 being the plaintiff is the master of the suit. True, under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure court has the power to add necessary or proper parties. A necessary part is one without whose presence the controversy involved in the suit cannot be decided. A proper party is one whose presence is required to give an effective adjudication of the disputes. A party seeking impleadment should have a direct or present interest in the subject matter. He must have some independent right in the property. Having considered the issue, I am not satisfied that petitioner falls in any of the above categories. As such petitioner cannot be impleaded as a party to the suit rejecting the objection of respondent No.1/plaintiff. I find no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Resultantly this writ petition is dismissed leaving open other remedies if any available to the petitioner.