B. FATHIMA BEEVI Vs. SORNAMMAL @ SORNAM (DEAD) TH.LRS.
LAWS(SC)-2018-10-143
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
October 03,2018
B. Fathima Beevi
Appellant
VERSUS
Sornammal @ Sornam (Dead) Th.Lrs.
Respondents
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) Leave granted.
against the order of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in and by which the High Court affirmed the order of the Trial Court dismissing the application for impleading the applicant herein.
3. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in the year 2002. The appellants herein, namely, B. Fathima Beevi and M. Kabir Mohammed claimed that they have purchased the suit property by two sale deeds dated 09.03.2012 and 14.03.2012 for valuable consideration from respondent nos. 1 to 4 - plaintiffs. The appellants herein filed interlocutory application being 630 of 2014 to implead themselves on the basis of their sale deeds. Respondent Nos. 56, the defendants in the suit resisted the application contending that the sale deeds are fraudulent since respondent nos. 1 to 4-plaintiffs themselves do not have the title and they themselves are seeking for declaration of the title.
4. The Trial Court dismissed the impleading application on the ground that respondent nos. 1 to 4 -plaintiffs have filed the suit way back in the year 2002 for declaration and for recovery of possession. The Trial Court further held that the suit property is in dispute right from the year 1995 and, therefore, the appellants-herein cannot be said to be bona fide purchaser. The Trial Court held that impleading the appellants herein would amount to (i) presumption of the plaintiffs title; and (ii) the appellants herein might set up a plea of bona fide purchase.
5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the impleading application, the appellants have filed Revision Petition before the High Court which again came to be dismissed as aforesaid.
6. We have heard Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Antony R. Julian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 56 and taking into account the impugned judgment and materials on record.
7. No doubt respondent nos. 1 to 4 - plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of their title alleging that their title is disputed and that cannot in any way be an impediment for the appellants who are the subsequent purchasers, for being impleaded. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 5-6 submitted that the appellants herein are not the bona fide purchasers and they knowingly purchased the litigation. The merits of this contention whether the purchase by the appellants is bona fide or not is to be agitated only at the time of the trial after the parties adduce oral and documentary evidence. Since the appellants have purchased the suit property after the filing of the suit, in order to have an effective adjudication and also to afford opportunity to the appellants, the impleading application i.e. I.A. No. 630 of 2014 is to be allowed and the appeal arising out of the SLP (C)No. 31814 of 2015 is to be allowed.
8. Insofar as appeals arising out of SLP(C)Nos. 31815, 31816 and 31817 of 2015 -application filed for change of Commissioner, application for temporary injunction and application for appointment of a receiver, in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court, we are not inclined to interfere with those orders. The appeals arising out SLP(C)Nos. 31815, 31816 and 31817 of 2015 are, accordingly, dismissed.
9. The impugned order of the High court (insofar as it arises out of I.A. No. 630/2014) in C.R.P. No. 1088 of 2015 is set aside and the appeal arising out of SLP(C)No. 31814 of 2015 is allowed. After impleadment of the appellants as plaintiffs, the defendants shall file their additional written statement, if any, within a period of four weeks from today and the appellants are permitted to file their rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.