Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Son's Right to Be Impleaded in Property Dispute: Delay Not a Valid Ground - Rules High Court"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal precedent, the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a judgment on September 29, 2023, affirming the right of a son to be impleaded as a party in a property dispute, even when the construction in question was carried out by him. The case, which was filed as a Civil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenged an order by the Trial Court to allow the impleadment of the son as defendant no.2 in a lawsuit for permanent injunction.

The plaintiff had initiated the lawsuit against the defendant, claiming that construction was taking place near his property, causing harm and seeking a mandatory injunction to remove it. The defendant, in his written statement, contended that he had no involvement in the construction, and it was carried out by his son.

The plaintiff subsequently filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to implead the son as defendant no.2, arguing that the property was owned by the son as per the defendant's own admission in his written statement.

The defendant opposed the application, asserting that it was time-barred and aimed at delaying the proceedings. However, the High Court, in its observation, emphasized the familial connection between the father and son and noted that in their society, a son and father are not considered separate entities.

The judgment stated, "In a society where a son and father are not separate entities, and the son is the owner and constructor of the suit property, the son is a necessary party to the suit. Delay is not a valid ground to deny impleadment."

In the final disposition, the High Court upheld the Trial Court's order, allowing the son to be impleaded as defendant no.2 in the lawsuit. The Civil Revision filed challenging this order was found to be without merit and was dismissed.

The judgment serves as a crucial legal precedent in cases where property disputes involve family members and highlights the importance of considering familial relationships when determining party impleadment.

This landmark decision clarifies that familial connections and property ownership are significant factors in deciding impleadment, emphasizing the principle that family members are integral parties to property disputes.

Date of Decision: 29 September 2023

Dr. Bijender @ Vijender Kumar  vs Mehar Singh and another 

 

Latest Legal News