Case Title: Vinayak Metrani And Gadigevva @ Neelavva & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 106032 OF 2022
CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
INTRODUCTION
The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court recently ruled that an individual who buys a share without being a direct participant in a partition lawsuit cannot influence decisions during the initial judgment phase. This decision was made during the review of a writ petition, in which someone who had purchased an undivided share contested a Civil Court’s decision to modify a partition suit.
FACTS
A case involving the division and separate possession of property was brought before the Civil Court. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs had not included all the properties in their claim, making a partial partition suit unacceptable. In response, the Plaintiffs requested the Court’s permission to amend their claim to include all the properties, and on September 3, 2022, the Civil Court granted this request.
Subsequently, Sri Vinayak (“Petitioner”), who is a purchaser of a share in the undivided property and a party to the mentioned lawsuit, filed a writ petition with the High Court. The purpose of this petition is to have the order issued on September 3, 2022, declared invalid and revoked.
COURT’S ANALYSIS
The court acknowledged that the petitioner is involved in a partition lawsuit seeking separate possession. Since the petitioner acquired an undivided interest as a purchaser, they do not have the legal standing to influence decisions in the initial stages of the suit. The fact that the petitioner was included in the lawsuit does not grant them authority to dictate its progression. Any rights the petitioner holds in the undivided interest will only be addressed in the final decree. The court found it peculiar that the petitioner, a stranger-purchaser without a rightful place in the partition case, attempted to challenge an order related to an amendment application. The court emphasized that during the creation of a preliminary decree, a stranger-purchaser lacks a say in the proceedings. Mere inclusion in the suit does not empower the petitioner to direct the course of the lawsuit. Any potential rights the petitioner may possess in the undivided interest must be resolved during the final decree proceedings. Consequently, the court rejected the writ petition on two grounds: firstly, the contested order adheres to the law, and secondly, the petitioner, as a stranger-purchaser, lacks the right to approach the court. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, who presided over the bench, echoed these sentiments and highlighted the petitioner’s lack of standing in the partition suit.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Shreya Sharma
