Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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