Failure To Collect Electronic Evidence Such As Call Detail Records In Offences Under Section 354 IPC Can Prove Fatal To Prosecution Case: Telangana High Court Mere Pendency Of Challenge To Sale Certificate Before DRT Does Not Bar Mutation Under OSS Rules: Orissa High Court Court May Impose Conditions On Minor’s Custody In Habeas Corpus Proceedings To Protect Best Interest Of Child: Madhya Pradesh High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Cannot Be Rejected For Lack Of Specific Particulars Or Res Judicata At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Surprise Check Without Prior FIR Registration Casts Doubt On Foundational Facts; Uncorroborated Approver Evidence Tainted: Madras High Court Acquits Former Protector Of Emigrants Appointment Of Lambardar | Appellate Authority Remanding Matter Must Not Pre-Judge Merits Of Candidates: Punjab & Haryana High Court Disciplinary Proceedings | Subsequent Deposit Of Embezzled Amount Does Not Exonerate Employee Or Efface Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court Order XXI Rule 37 CPC | Willful Evasion Of Decretal Debt Despite Having Means Justifies Arrest And Detention: Telangana High Court Claims For Recovery Of Stridhan Must Be Substantiated By Cogent Evidence, Not Merely Oral Assertion: Kerala High Court Concurrent Findings Of Fact Regarding Unproved Oral Family Settlement Cannot Be Re-Appreciated In Second Appeal: Punjab And Haryana High Court Limitation Act | Governmental Bureaucratic Delays Without Acceptable Explanation Cannot Be A Ground For Condoning Delay Under Section 5: Telangana High Court Constitutional Courts Should Refrain From Fixing Time-Bound Schedules For Disposal Of Cases In Lower Courts: Jharkhand High Court Industrial Tribunal Cannot Bypass Adjudication Of Domestic Enquiry Validity In Termination Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 106 Indian Evidence Act Cannot Shift Burden To Accused Unless Prosecution Establishes A Prima Facie Case: Allahabad High Court NDPS Act | Criminal Antecedents And Stage Of Investigation Are Decisive Factors For Grant Of Bail Under Section 480 BNSS: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cannot Dismember An Existing Factory: Bombay High Court Quashes BMC Notices To Acquire Private Land Under Section 299 MMC Act Order 21 Rule 32 CPC | Proof Of Violation By Way Of Expert Evidence Regarding Age Of Construction Is Mandatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 34 Arbitration And Conciliation Act | Court Cannot Re-appreciate Evidence, But Award Lacking Reasoning And Basis Is Patently Illegal: Calcutta High Court Section 175(3) & (4) BNSS | Magistrate Cannot Pass Mechanical Orders For FIR Registration Against Public Servants Without Complying With Statutory Safeguards: Allahabad High Court Section 69 Indian Succession Act | Provision For Automatic Revocation Of Will Upon Marriage Is Not Violative Of Article 14 Or 15 Of The Constitution: Kerala High Court Unilateral Cancellation Of Registered Gift Deed Without Civil Court Decree Is Void Ab-Initio: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inter-District Transfer Of Teachers Cannot Be Claimed As A Matter Of Right By Jeopardizing Student-Teacher Ratio: Supreme Court Judicial Misconduct | Threatening To Sleep On Pavement To Demand Official Accommodation Constitutes Grave Misconduct Disentitling A Judge From Service: Gujarat High Court Guardians And Wards Act | Father’s Declaration Of Having ‘No Children’ In Matrimonial Profile Disentitles Him To Custody: Madras High Court NDPS Act | Failure To Comply With Section 52A And Unexplained Delay In Forensic Sampling Vitiates Prosecution Case: Patna 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