REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.              OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20131 of 2006)

Marirudraiah & Ors.           .... Appellant(s)

Versus

B. Sarojamma & Ors.                   .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.  

2) This  appeal  is directed against the final  judgment and

orders dated 15.06.2006 and 17.06.2006 passed by the High

Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No.

207 of 2003.  

3) Regular  First  Appeal  No.  207 of  2003 was filed  under

Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code before the High Court

of  Karnataka  against  the  judgment  and  decree  dated

25.10.2002  passed  in  O.S.  No.  8252  of  1998  by   the  XXII

1

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore granting

preliminary  decree  in  a  suit  for  partition  and  separate

possession.   In  the  said  appeal,  applicants-Suresh Salariya

and V. Mohammed Shaffiulla of Bangalore filed I.A. No. 4 of

2005  seeking  permission  to  bring  them  on  record  as

additional respondents contending that they have purchased

suit item No.9 from Smt. B. Sarojamma with the consent of

other sharers, appellant Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 8 therein.  In the

absence  of  any objection by the appellants,  the High Court

allowed  the  said  application.   It  is  further  seen  that  the

appellants and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 before the High Court

filed a compromise petition and the same was signed by all the

parties by their respective advocates.  On 15.06.2006, all the

parties to the compromise petition were present and admitted

the  execution  of  the  same.   They  were  identified  by  their

advocates.  According to the compromise, the parties have no

objection  to  divide  the  suit  schedule  joint  family  properties

under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.  In terms of the

compromise, the appeal itself was disposed of.  At that stage,

counsel  appearing  for  respondent  Nos.  4  and  5  before  the

2

High Court,  purchasers  of  item No.  9 submitted  that  since

they  purchased  the  suit  item  No.9  from  appellant  No.1,

namely, B. Sarojamma with the consent of appellant Nos. 3, 4,

5 and 8, prayed that the suit item No. 9 may be allotted to the

share of those persons and they may be directed to pay the

value of the share of the remaining parties in respect of suit

item No.9 is concerned.  It was pointed out by the purchasers

that  considering  the  total  number  of  shares  to  be  divided

among the parties, suit item No. 9 cannot be divided by metes

and bounds. However, the contesting parties submitted that

the  said  dispute  has  to  be  relegated  to  the  final  decree

proceedings.  

4) Considering  the  submissions  made,  the  High  Court

accepted the claim of the purchasers-impleaded Respondents

and directed the trial Court to work out equity in favour of the

purchasers and compensate the plaintiffs and other sharers

who  are  not  parties  to  the  sale  deed  in  the  final  decree

proceedings.   With  the  said  observation,  the  High  Court

dismissed the appeal on 15.06.2006.  

3

5) On  17.06.2006,  at  the  request  of  the  counsel  for  the

respondent  Nos.  1  and 2 therein,  the matter  was listed for

“being spoken to”.  Thereafter, the High Court, after hearing

the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  respective  parties,

clarified the earlier order dated 15.06.2006 and observed that

“since  the  purchasers  have  stepped  into  the  shoes  of  the

appellants,  plaintiffs  share has to be  ascertained  and while

working out the equity, the share of the plaintiff in item No.9

shall  be compensated in terms of money by considering the

market value by the appellants who have sold the property to

respondent  Nos.  4  and  5.”   Though  the  said  course  was

strongly objected to by the contesting parties, the High Court

declined to modify the same and reiterated its  earlier  order

dated  15.06.2006.   Aggrieved  by  these  orders,  respondents

therein filed the above appeal.  

6) We heard Mr. Naveen R. Nath, learned counsel  for the

appellants and Mr. M.N. Krishna Mani, learned senior counsel

for the respondents.  

7) The  questions  which  arise  for  consideration  in  this

appeal are:

4

(a) Whether the High Court was justified in impleading

the purchasers pendente lite as party respondents in the

appeal?  

(b) Whether High Court was justified in issuing direction

for  allotment  of  suit  item  No.9  in  favour  of  the

purchasers  and  compensation  to  be  paid  to  the  other

sharers?  

8) Considering the limited issue raised, there is no need to

traverse all  the factual details.   Admittedly,  after passing of

the  preliminary  decree,  the  subject-matter  of  the  suit  was

pending in the High Court as Regular First Appeal No. 207 of

2003 and the same was closed by recording the compromise

petition filed by the parties. An application for passing final

decree for actual apportionment among the sharers was filed

before the trial Court and the same is pending consideration

as on date.  In view of the fact that B. Sarojamma and Others

sold item No.9 in favour of respondent Nos. 8 and 9 herein,

they filed I.A. No. 4 of 2005 in the First Appeal pending in the

High  Court  for  impleading  them as  additional  respondents.

There  is  no  need  to  go  into  the  question  about  their

5

entitlement.  In view of the fact that they purchased item No.9

of the suit property from B. Sarojamma and Others who are

sharers, we are not inclined to disturb the order of the High

Court  impleading  them as  respondents  in  the  proceedings.

However,  as  rightly  pointed  out  by  learned  counsel  for  the

appellants, we are more concerned about the positive direction

of the High Court that in the final decree proceedings, the trial

court has to work out the equity in favour of the purchasers

and compensate the plaintiffs and other sharers who are not

parties to the sale deed.  As pointed out by learned counsel for

the appellants, it is not in dispute that when the purchasers

approached  the  High  Court  for  their  impleadment  and  for

directions, final decree proceeding was pending before the trial

Court.   In  fact,  it  was  pointed  out  that  pursuant  to  the

application filed for passing final decree, a Commissioner was

appointed  for  division  of  the  suit  properties  by  metes  and

bounds.   It  is relevant to point out that Respondent Nos. 8

and 9 herein purchased item No.9 from the first respondent

herein  pendente lite.  In fact, the courts are not supposed to

encourage  pendente  lite transactions  and  regularize  their

6

conduct  by  showing  equity  in  their  favour.   In  such

circumstances,  we  are  of  the  view  that  it  is  but  proper  to

relegate all the issues in the final decree proceedings and in

the case on hand, the same is pending before the trial Court.  

9) In the light of the above discussion, we confirm the order

of the High Court with regard to impleading the pendente lite

purchasers (Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 herein) as parties to the

proceedings,  whereas  other  aspects,  namely,  direction  for

payment  of  compensation  to  the  plaintiff  and  others  and

working out equity are set aside.  However, all the parties are

permitted  to  put-forth  their  claim  by  way  of  separate

application  before  the  trial  Court  in  the  final  decree

proceedings  and  it  is  for  the  trial  Court  to  consider  the

claim/objection  of  the  parties  including  equity  and  pass

appropriate orders in accordance with law.  

10) To this extent, the impugned order of the High Court is

modified and the appeal is allowed in part.  No costs.  

.…...….…….……………………J                                                  (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

7

...…………………………………J.                (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)

....…………………………………J.  (P. SATHASIVAM)                  

NEW DELHI; APRIL 02, 2009.

8