'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme 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