Cpc order 1 rule 10 & order 39 rule 1 & 2
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 05 October 2011
This query is : Resolved
Respected Sir,
My grand mother who had purchase two peaces of land an area Ac.1.083 & Ac.10O3 decimals from one Khata and one Plot vide two registered sale deed on dt.13.06.86 with specific boundary and sketch map from all 8 nos co-sharers / owners through their general power of Attorney Holder who is also one co-owners. On the same day said Power of attorney holder had executed registered sale deeds in favour of other 10 persons from the same one Khata and plot . But in each and every sale deeds of nos of difeerent vendee inadvertenly wrong khata number was mentioned although the plot no, area and boundary was correctly mentioned.
My grand mother died in died in 27.04.1996 and after her demise the legal heirs my father and uncle are continuing in peaceful possession as owner thereof and has already filed a suit in the year 2004 in hon'ble trial court for suit for declaration with a relief for correction of Khata number in the sale deed and the same is pending for defence evidence.
We came to know that in the year 2011, Three( 3) other different subsequent purchaser / vendee who purchases in the year 1990 from the same partial six(6) nos out of 8 (eight) of co-owners without partition by metes and bound by virtue of other registered sale deed from the same boundary and sketch map which was attached in my grand mother sale deeds , after filing 3 nos of different suit for permanet injuction in the same hon'ble trial court against my father and uncle and interim order is passed to maintain status quo of this suit land in our absence.
Further all the 3 nos subsequent purchasers / vendees filed separate application under CPC order 1 rule 10 to implead as party in the suit for declaration of correction of khata no filed by my father and uncle.
Therfore you are hereby requested to be kind enough to furnish me the and relevant judgement for :
01. Dissmiss the application for Impleadment as party in suit for declaration.
02. Dissmiss the interim status quo order in suit for permanet injunction.
Thanking you,
With Regards,
A.K.Dash
A/56, Sahidnagar,
Bhubaneswar - 751007
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 05 October 2011
i remember you have asked it some where in past,please revert back to old thread.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 05 October 2011
SIR,
TILL DATE I HAVE NOT FIND ANY ANSWER FROM ANY EXPERT. PLS HELP ME
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 05 October 2011
CAN YOU ATTACH BOTH SALE DEEDS???
MAKE THE QUOTED PART MORE CLEAR CHRONOLOGICALLY ABOUT YOUR QUERY"We came to know that in the year 2011, Three( 3) other different subsequent purchaser / vendee who purchases in the year 1990 from the same partial six(6) nos out of 8 (eight) of co-owners without partition by metes and bound by virtue of other registered sale deed from the same boundary and sketch map which was attached in my grand mother sale deeds , after filing 3 nos of different suit for permanet injuction in the same hon'ble trial court against my father and uncle and interim order is passed to maintain status quo of this suit land in our absence.
Further all the 3 nos subsequent purchasers / vendees filed separate application under CPC order 1 rule 10 to implead as party in the suit for declaration of correction of khata no filed by my father and uncle."
MAKE THIS INVERTED PORTION VERY CLEAR ALONG WITH YOUR SUIT DETAIL I AM UNABLE TO COMPREHEND WITH IT .
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 06 October 2011
As the Khata no. has wrongly been entered in sale-deed pertaining to your grand ma and you have filed a civil suit seeking correction so subsequent vendees (illegal)who also want to become parties to that suit, have no right to purchase and thus to become a party to your suit. It is better to file a civil suit for declaration and injunction to get their sale-deed set aside. You may also file a counter claim wherein they have filed separate suits and have obtained ex-parte stay order.
Stay order is a discretionary power of court but this discretion should be judicious. The opponent have obtained stay order only in your absence wherein your facts were not there. Now you file reply and counter claim. Court shall definitely vacate stay order granted in favour of wrong doer.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 06 October 2011
Respected Prabhakar Sir,
1.In the year 1986 my grand mother has purchased from 8 nos co-sharers / owners through their general power of Attorney Holder who is also one co-owners an area of Ac.1.083 dec and Ac.1.003 dec vide two regd sale deeds from from one Khata and one Plot out of total area Ac.26.950dec but inadvertenly wrong khata number was mentioned although the plot no, area and boundary was correctly mentioned.
2. We came to know in the year 2011 after the notice received sent the hon'ble junior division civil court regarding three(3) nos separate suit for permanet injunction has already been filed three(3) different persons who were also purchased case land 100 decimal each which was also sold by the some partial origional coowners illegally as they have already sold the same case land to grand mother in the year 1986.
3. We confirm after verification of the sketch map attached in the regd.sale deeds executed in the year 1990 of aforesaid 3 nos subsequent transferee / purchaser that their case land is coming within the same boundary which was attached in my grand mother regd.sale deeds.
4. Now the said aforesaid 3 nos subsequent transferee / purchaser were also filed separate application to implead as party in the suit for declaration with specific relief for correction of khata No and permanet injunction against all 8 nos vendor (owner) which was filed by my father and uncle in the year 2004.
5. We have already filed the objection statement for I.A and Suit for permanet injunction in all three suit filed by aforesaid 3 nos subsequent transferee / purchaser and which is pending for argument.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 06 October 2011
Yet one thing unclear that mistake regarding khata number has crept only in your sale deed or also in subsequent sale deeds of your opponents also???
ANY if it is at both places it is better in your health.
The law is that in cases of dispute between two sale deeds ,it is the deed executed first in time shall be given effect to.
If they are seeking impleadment then i do not view a big issue before you.Normally one who in the opinion of a court a necessary party or even a proper party,the courts allow the impleadment.An exception comes when a suit is only for a relief of injunction,where it is supposed that a plaintiff is master of his suit and have a right to choose who against he requires injunction.This too is not so rigid that court would be bound not to allow.
Besides it i also view that it would not be against your interest if they get impleaded otherwise even if you get a decree ,it would not be binding upon them.
Then what is getting established that their non impleadment would encourage multiplicity of litigation which courts as a matter of policy of administration of justice never encourage,that gives them ample power to implead.
so do not concentrate too much on this issue,objecting any application in a contesting case is normal affair.But even if gets allowed it would not be any way against your interest if POA who sold on behalf of other co sharers had a valid registered POA.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 06 October 2011
Respected Prabhakar Sir,
That mistake regarding khata number has crept only in our sale deed but type of land (Kisam) mentioned in opponents sale deed are wrong.
As you have suggested If the opponents were seeking impleadment then we do not face a big issue. But our grievance is :
1. If opponents come to court seeking for impleading one after another during the course of the proceedings, it will be next to impossible to keep on adding the parties and in such event the suit can never come to an end also then there will be no end to such applications and the adjudication of the suit shall be delayed and it will an attempt on the part of the opponents to complicate and delay the pending suits.
2.Separate three nos of civil suit for permanent injuction of 2011 has already been filed by three different opponents in the case land which is coming under our suit property, the interim status quo order passed by the trial Court is still in operation and it will be decided in their own merit of right, title & interest .
3.when the earlier separate suits for permanet injunction has already been filed by opponents before the application for impleadment made in our suit in the same Hon'ble Court. Whether two parallel suit runs simultaneously between the same party and same suit property.
4. But in our suit of 2004 no relief is sought against the proposed applicants (opponents) and the relief prayed for is also not intended to be made binding on them. There is no allegation against the opponents and that no relief has been claimed against the opponents. we are neither claiming any right or remedy against the proposed applicants nor they are not the parties in the sale deeds executed between my grand mother and her vendors.
Kindly suggest what neccessary legal steps should be taken by us.
