Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 412 (AP)

B. Basheer Khan v. Syed Shareef

2006-03-22

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2006
( 1 ) THE 1st respondent filed O. S. No. 104 of 2004, in the Court of Principal Junior Civil judge, Rayachoty, against the 2nd respondent, forthe relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. He also filed i. A. No. 302 of 2004, under Order 39 Rule 1 c. P. C. The trial court granted an order of status quo on 24-3-2004. ( 2 ) THE 2nd respondent is said to have executed a GPA, as well as a sale deed, in favour of the petitioner herein on 3-9-2004. It is stated that the 2nd respondent has since left for abroad. ( 3 ) PETITIONER filed I. A. No. 1226 of 2004, underorder I Rule 10 C. P. C. , with a prayerto implead him as defendant No. 2, in the suit. The trial court dismissed the application, through its order dated 15-12-2004. Hence, the C. R. P. ( 4 ) SRI T. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was entitled to be added as a party to the suit, since he has acquired interest in the suit schedule property. He contends that the observation of the trial court that the purchase made by the petitioner is in violation of the order of status quo, cannot be sustained in law. Learned counsel points out that the sale in favour of the petitioner did not bring about any change, vis-a-vis the orders of status quo, and the transfer of title cannot be said to have defeated the rights of the 1st respondent, in any manner. ( 5 ) SRI V. R. Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, submits that the transaction in favour of the petitioner is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, and as such, the 2nd respondent has no legal right to be enforced, or plea to be taken in the suit. ( 6 ) THE 1st respondent filed a suit for perpetual injunction, against the 2nd respondent, and obtained an order of status quo on 24-3-2004. About six months thereafter, the 2nd respondent is said to have transferred the suit schedule property, in favour of the petitioner. An application under Order I rule 10 C. P. C. , was filed by the petitioner, with a prayer to implead him, as defendant no. 2. About six months thereafter, the 2nd respondent is said to have transferred the suit schedule property, in favour of the petitioner. An application under Order I rule 10 C. P. C. , was filed by the petitioner, with a prayer to implead him, as defendant no. 2. The trial Court dismissed the application, by observing thatthe sale in favourof petitioner amounts to violation of the orders of status quo and that it cannot be recognized in law. ( 7 ) THE doctrine of lis pendensis incorporated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 52 of the said Act does not prohibit the transferof property, which is subject matterof suit, as a whole. What is prohibited underthe provision is transfer, which has the effect of defeating the rights of any party to the suit, under any decree or order, which may be made therein. In other words, any transfer, which takes place in respect of a property, which is subject matter of a suit, during the pendency of such proceedings, does not have the effect of defeating the rights of the other parties to the suit. The maximum that can happen is that the transferees would stand in the same position and status, as the transferors, and the legal consequences that flow against the parties to the suit would bind on the transferees also. It is a different thing, if the transfers have taken place, in violation of an order of injunction prohibiting the parties to the suit from alienating any item of suit schedule property. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the suit is for the relief of perpetual injunction, and the trial court granted an order of status quo. The said order would operate not only against the 2nd respondent, but also any person claiming through him. On account of the transfer in favour of him, the petitioner answers the description of "person claiming through" the 2nd respondent. The petitioner would be subjected to the same obligation, as would be the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be impleaded as party to the suit, and it was in the interest of the 1st respondent himself, that the petitioner is made a party to the suit. The petitioner would be subjected to the same obligation, as would be the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be impleaded as party to the suit, and it was in the interest of the 1st respondent himself, that the petitioner is made a party to the suit. ( 9 ) FORTHE foregoing reasons, the C. R. P. is allowed and the order under revision is set aside, and I. A. No. 1226 of 2004, shall stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.