CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. - (1.) MR . Manjul Prasad, the learned senior counsel appearing for the proposed intervenor submits that on 03.04.2013 by a registered sale deed, the premises in question has been purchased by the applicant from respondent no.2 and therefore, in order to protect his interest in the suit property flowing from Sale Deed dated 03.04.2013, he may be added as partyrespondent in the present proceeding.
(2.) IT is admitted by the counsel appearing for the parties that the applicant has yet to move an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC seeking his impleadment in Title Suit No.480 of 2011. Whether the applicant is a necessary party or a proper party in Title Suit No.480 of 2011 is a matter, which has to be adjudicated in the application, if any, filed by the applicant in the trial court. In this view of the matter I.A. No.4040 of 2014 is dismissed. However, a liberty is reserved with the petitioner to file appropriate application in Title Suit No.480 of 2011. It is made clear that dismissal of I.A. No.4040 of 2014 would not cause any prejudice to the applicant, as this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application. W.P. (C) No. 3475 of 2014
(3.) THE present writ petition has been filed seeking direction for early disposal of application dated 13.09.2012 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC and for an order restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the premises in question till the pendency of Title Suit No.480 of 2011. Briefly stated, the facts as narrated in this writ petition are summerised thus; On 31.01.1963, a Registered Deed of Gift was executed in favour of respondent no.1Anisur Rahman, who came in actual possession of the suit property. He subsequently executed Registered Deed of Hiba (Gift) in favour of his wife Farzana Rahman @ Farzana Khatoon. However, a dispute arose with respect to right, title and interest over the property and a title suit being, Title Sit No.24 of 1975 was filed and an award was passed whereunder, the said Farzana Rahman @ Farzana Khatoon became absolute owner of the property constructed on the ground floor. The award was made Rule of Court on 30.06.1978 however, the respondent no.1 illegally sold the property to one Navin Kumarrespondent no.3. It appears that the said Farzana Rahman @ Farzana Khatoon and respondent no.1 jointly sold the suit property to one Mr. Subodh Prasad, who came in actual possession of the property and got his name mutated in the government revenue and municipal records. The said Navin Kumarrespondent no.3 sold the property to one Javed Ahamad, who has been made respondent no.2 in the present proceeding. Subsequently, the said Javed Ahamad filed Title Eviction Suit No.40 of 2000 against the tenants namely, Chandrashekhar Arya and Urvesh Arya in which, an exparte order was passed on 27.05.2002. The Execution Case No.03 of 2003 was instituted, which was decreed vide order dated 27.05.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the suit property from the said Subodh Prasad in terms of family settlement. In view of the above facts, he filed a title suit being, Title Suit No.480 of 2011 seeking following declarations: A. "On adjudication the plaintiff's right, title and interest over the suit property described in schedule below be declared. B. It be declared that the sale deed dated 24.09.1987 executed by the Defendant no.1 in favour of the Defendant no.3 which has been entered in Book No.1 volume no.51 pages 341 to 349 being No.8118 of the office of the District Sub Registrar, Ranchi are void, abinitio and are not binding on the plaintiff. The said sale deeds are also not affect the perfect right title of the plaintiff over the suit property. C. Plaintiff's possession over the suit property through the tenant be confirmed." ;