CHANDRAKANT RAIPAT, SON OF SRI PRATAPSINH K. RAIPAT & ANR. Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR GANGULY, SON OF LATE KASHISHWAR GANGULY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of order dated 17.12.2014 passed in Partition Suit No. 09 of 2000, whereby an application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 22, Rule 10 C.P.C filed by the petitioners claiming purchase of a part of the suit schedule property from defendant nos. 9, 11, 12(a), 12(b) and 12(c) has been declined, the petitioners have approached this Court.

(2.) Partition Suit No. 09 of 2000 was instituted by Santosh Kumar Ganguli for a decree for 1/2 share in the suit properties. The suit was contested by the defendants disputing the address of the defendants disclosed in the partition suit. It was pleaded that in M.S record of rights name of Durga Prasad Ganguli, Sarda Prasad Ganguli and Kashishwar Ganguli in respect of M.S Holding No. 22/A, H. No. 810 of M.S New Holding No. 1176 in Ward No. VI (old) ad-measuring about 261 Kari is recorded, however, the Municipal Records stood in the name of Durga Prasad Ganguli only and after his death rent receipts were issued in his name. Schedule 'B' properties, it was claimed, are owned and possessed by heirs of Durga Prasad Ganguli and after his death his son, daughter and wife came in possession over the said land. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs pleading that heirs of Santosh Kumar Ganguli and Kashishwar Ganguli have no right, title and possession over the suit properties, for Sarda Prasad Ganguli and Kashishwar Ganguli had no right, title and interest over the same. During pendency of the suit, by a registered sale-deed dated 12.09.2012 defendant nos. 9, 11, 12(a), 12(b)and 12(c) alienated a piece of property comprised under the suit schedule properties to the petitioners. In the above facts, the petitioners filed an application for their impleadment in Partition Suit No. 09 of 2000, which has been dismissed by the trial Judge vide an order dated 17.12.2014.

(3.) Contending that a purchaser pendente-lite has a valuable interest flowing from the registered sale-deed, Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that impleadment of the petitioners is necessary for protecting their rights under sale-deed dated 12.09.2012. Opposing the aforesaid contention, the learned counsels appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submit that a purchaser pendente-lite cannot claim a better right than what his vendor can claim and while so, impleadment of a purchaser pendente-lite, who is a stranger to the partition suit, cannot be permitted.