SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,J. - (1.) Petitioner No. 1 claiming herself purchaser of 50 decimals land in Plot No. 2114/C and petitioner no. 2 claiming herself purchaser of 50 decimals land in plot no. 2114/B under Khata No. 162 from one Most. Baidehi Kueri through two registered sale-deeds both dated 03.05.1986 filed an application for their impleadment in Partition Suit No. 327 of 2012, which has been declined by the impugned order dated 10.06.2016.
(2.) Title Partition Suit No. 327 of 2012 was instituted by Prabha Devi-daughter-in-law of Baidehi Kueri and her grand sons and grand daughter. In the partition suit, son of Baidehi Kueri namely, Chandra Mohan Narayan Tiwary and her daughter-in-law namely, Malti Devi were defendants. The suit was instituted for a preliminary decree claiming one-third share for the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties, which comprised about 35.54 acres land. The lands conveyed to the petitioners by Most. Baidehi Kueri through sale deeds dated 03.05.1986 are also comprised in the suit schedule properties. The suit was decreed on 31.01.2014 and a preliminary decree was drawn up on 10.02.2014. At this stage, the petitioners filed an application on 08.12.2014 for their impleadment in Partition Suit No.327 of 2012. This application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.06.2016, holding that the petitioners who are not in possession of the lands allegedly conveyed to them 30 years before, may file a regular suit to get a declaration of their possession and recovery of possession.
(3.) Referring to judgment in "Dhanlakshmi and Others v. P. Mohan and Others" reported in (2007) 10 SCC 719 , the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a purchaser pendent lite is a necessary party in a partition suit and while so, rejection of the petitioners' application for their impleadment in Partition Suit No.327 of 2012 is illegal. Another contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioners' claim flowing from registered sale-deeds dated 03.05.1986 can be looked into by the Court even at the stage of preparation of a final decree. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners refers to decision in "Maddineni Koteswara Rao v. Maddineni Bhaskara Rao and Another" reported in (2009) 13 SCC 179 .;