KANAKA SAHU Vs. KRUSHNA CHANDRA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, petitioner has assailed legality of the order dated 19.4.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Berhampur in C.S. No. 172 of 2006 (for short 'present suit) passed on the application under section 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. filed by the opposite parties to stay further proceeding in the present suit on the ground of pendency of T.S. No. 75 of 1980 (for short 'earlier suit) in the aforesaid Court.

(2.) PRESENT suit is a suit for permanent injunction in which petitioner is the plaintiff and opposite parties are defendants. Earlier suit is a suit for partition. Suit property in present suit is included in B -schedule property in earlier suit. Plaintiff in present suit is defendant no.22 and defendants in present suit are defendant Nos. 15 to 17 in earlier suit. Plaintiff in present suit has purchased the suit land on the strength of two registered sale deeds dated 20.9.2006 executed by Khirod Kumari Devi who is defendant no.2 in earlier suit. Earlier suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against her co -sharers and their transferees. Plaintiff and defendants in the present suit have been impleaded in earlier suit as pendent lite transferees of some of the property therein.

(3.) IN the written objection filed against application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. it is averred by the plaintiff that subject -matter in the present suit is different from earlier suit. In the earlier suit entire joint family property is the subject matter of dispute. By way of adjustments members of the joint family held and possessed different shares and accordingly mutation has been effected. Recorded owners have sold some of their respective share lands to different persons. Plaintiff in the present suit being a bona fide purchaser of the suit property, without notice of the earlier suit, result of earlier suit shall have no effect on the rights of the parties to the present suit. In the meanwhile, members of joint family have relinquished their right over the suit property in the present suit as a result of which suit property in the present suit no longer forms part of the suit property in the earlier suit. It is specifically averred that causes of action, reliefs claimed as well as parties and issues in both the suits are different. Result of the present suit shall not be governed by the result of the earlier suit inasmuch as in the suit for partition the present suit property shall be adjusted against the shares of plaintiffs vendor.