Court says documents prima facie showed school’s interest in the disputed plot; intervention allowed to ensure complete adjudication and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
The Jharkhand High Court has refused to interfere with an order allowing intervention in a title suit over a disputed plot in Ranchi, holding that the intervener’s presence was necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi dismissed a writ petition filed by Shabana Khatoon, who had challenged the Subordinate Judge-I, Ranchi’s order dated February 24, 2014, permitting Md. Sabir, President of Public Urdu Middle School, Kantatoli Chowk, Ranchi, to intervene in Title Suit No. 173 of 2011.
The petitioner claimed ownership and possession over the suit property, measuring 3 kathas 9 chataks, on the basis of a registered sale deed dated February 16, 1995. She argued that the land had been validly purchased from Swapan Kumar Saha, who in turn had acquired it from earlier recorded owners, and that the property had been mutated in her name with rent being regularly paid. She contended that the intervener had no right, title or interest in the property and therefore could not be added as a party.
However, the respondents supported the impleadment, submitting that the intervener had produced documents indicating that the land belonged to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation and that an Urdu school was functioning on the plot. The High Court noted that the municipal records filed by the intervener suggested that M.S. Plot No. 375 was property of the Municipal Corporation, and that there was also reference to the existence of an Urdu school on the land. The Court further observed that there was a dispute not only about title but also about the exact portion of the plot over which the school was allegedly situated.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vidur Impex and Traders (P) Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments (P) Ltd., the High Court reiterated the settled principle that a court may implead a person whose presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the issues involved in a suit. The Court held that where documents prima facie indicate a third party’s interest in the same property, such party may be added to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
Justice Dwivedi concluded that the intervener was a necessary party in the present case, as the dispute over the same plot and its possession could not be effectively resolved without his participation. Finding no illegality in the trial court’s order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and vacated the interim order earlier granted.
The Court also left the parties free to appear before the trial court, which was directed to proceed with the title suit in accordance with law.
Bottom Line :
Impleadment/Intervention - In a title suit for declaration of right, title and interest and injunction, where documents produced by intervener prima facie show interest in the same plot and dispute exists regarding portion and possession of the suit land, intervener is a necessary party for effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings - Order allowing intervention calls for no interference under Article 227.
Statutory provision(s): Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Shabana Khatoon v. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, (Jharkhand) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987116
