JANAKI DAS Vs. SIDHESWAR DAS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order dated 7.8.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kendrapara in C.S. No.399 of 2008. By the said order, learned trial court allowed the applications of opposite party nos.2 and 3 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment.

(2.) The petitioner as plaintiff instituted C.S. No.399 of 2008 for partition and permanent injunction impleading the opposite party no.1 and one Sanatan Das as defendants. While the matter stood thus, opposite party nos.2 and 3 filed separate applications under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment. It is stated by opposite party no.2 that he and his brother had purchased a portion of the suit land from Santan Das, defendant no.1 by means of a registered sale deed dtd.9.11.2005. In the meantime, defendant no.1 is dead. He would be adversely affected by the decree. Similar plea has been taken by the opposite party no.3. It is stated that he has purchased the property from the defendant no.1 by means of a registered sale deed dtd.26.6.2009. The plaintiff filed objections separately. The stand of the plaintiff is that when the order of status quo was in operation, the defendant no.1 transferred a portion of the suit land to opposite party no.3. Further a portion of the suit land has been transferred in favour of the intervenors without taking prior permission from the consolidation authorities and as such both the sale deeds are void ab initio.

(3.) Learned trial court came to hold that this is not the stage to decide the validity of the sale deeds. It further held that the defendant no.1 alienated a portion of the suit land in favour of opposite party no.2 and another by means of a registered sale deed dated 9.11.2005 much prior to the institution of the suit. It further held that the opposite party no.3 is a lis pendens purchaser. Relying on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Dhanalakshmi and others vs. P Mohan and others, 2007 AIR(SC) 1062, it held that after death of defendant no.1, nobody is there to protect the interest of the transferee. In the event the plaintiff and defendant no.2 will join together, the intervenors cannot protect their right. Held so, learned trial court allowed the applications.