Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2784 (ALL)

Gulfam and another v. Rajesh Goyal and others

2011-12-08

SANJAY MISRA

body2011
Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.:- Supplementary affidavit filed be taken on record. Heard Sri Rajesh Gupta learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri P.K. Jain learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Manish Kumar Jain learned counsel for the plaintiff respondents. According to Sri Rajesh Gupta an impleadment application was filed by the revisionists in Suit No. 463 of 2009 (Rajesh Goyel and others Vs Faheemuddin and others) which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 24.9.2011 by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court no. 5, Meerut illegally. Learned counsel has submitted that the plaintiff respondents had filed suit against the defendant respondents no. 4 to 7 for injunction with respect to land which he claims was comprised in Khasra no. 2076. Learned counsel states that the revisionists are purchasers of land from the defendant respondents no. 4 to 7 and therefore when the sale deed was executed during pendency of the suit they filed an application for impleadment since they were the subsequent purchasers and their rights were directly involved in the suit hence they were entitled to be impleaded but by rejecting the application the court below has committed a material irregularity. In support of his submission learned counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance on a decision of this court in the case of (Hameed Vs Allauddin) 2011 (113) RD 760 to state that the subsequent purchaser is vested with the right of the vendor and any decision taken in the suit would substantially affect his right and therefore the impleadment application ought to have been allowed. He has also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Savitri Devi Vs District Judge, Gorakhpur and others) reported in Allahabad Rent Cases, 1999 (2) page 7 to state that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to settle the disputed questions in one suit itself the court has power to implead any person as a party at any stage of proceedings and therefore the revisionists was entitled to be impleaded in the suit itself. He has also placed reliance on a decision in the case of (Amit Kumar Shaw and another Vs Farida Khatoon and another) reported in 2005 (2) AWC 1348 (SC) to state that substitution of transferees pendentelite is permissible even during pendency of a second appeal in the High Court since the lease hold interest in the property assigned to the appellants and other property transferred to them through sale deed by contesting respondents gave a vested right to the purchasers and therefore the High Court committed an error in not permitting them to be impleaded. Sri P.K. Jain learned Senior Counsel has contested the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionists on two scores, the first is that insofar as the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra) is concerned the same was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs Nabi Hassan Saheb) reported in AIR 2004 SC 173 and it was found that transfer of property during pendency of the suit without leave of the court was an alienation not found bonafide and therefore the application for impleadment of the subsequent purchaser was rightly rejected. He has also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Sanjay Verma Vs Manik Roy and others) 2007 (1) AWC 462 (SC) to state that the doctrine in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was clearly applicable in the present case since the transfer pendentilite was not made with the permission of the court. The second submission of Sri Jain is that the plaintiff respondent had filed the suit for the land comprised in Khasra no. 2076 whereas the revisionsits has sought impleadment by saying that the land in question is comprised in plot Khasra no. 2078. According to Sri Jain the plot no. 2076 is not recorded in the name of the revisionists and it is recorded in the name of the plaintiff respondents and therefore a dispute regarding identification of the land being raised by the revisionists by seeking impleadment could not have been decided in this suit it being quite a separate cause of action. 2076 is not recorded in the name of the revisionists and it is recorded in the name of the plaintiff respondents and therefore a dispute regarding identification of the land being raised by the revisionists by seeking impleadment could not have been decided in this suit it being quite a separate cause of action. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly hit the circumstances in this case since admittedly the transfer made in favour of the revisionists has been done during pendency of the instant suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff. The second question raised is that the suit relates to land in Khasra no. 2076 and therefore insofar as the revisionists applicants are concerned they have not claimed any right, title or interest over Khasra no. 2076. In case the plaintiff succeeds in his suit and makes any interference in plot no. 2078 alleged by the revisionists to be his plot that would be a separate cause of action, therefore there is no question of multiplicity of proceedings in case the revisionists is not impleaded in the suit his claim being totally alien to the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff. When the revisionists have no concern with Khasra no. 2076 they cannot claim any impleadment in the suit which is confined to Khasra no. 2076 and has no relation to Khasra no. 2078. Insofar as the submission that the revisionists are the subsequent purchasers from the defendant respondents against whom the suit has been filed is concerned the identity of the land purchased by the revisionists clearly has been shown to be existing on plot no. 2078 which the plaintiffs have never claimed therefore in case the defendant respondents have alienated land in plot no. 2078 the dispute being raised by the revisionists could not be decided in the present suit. The application for impleadment has rightly been refused by the Trial Court. There is no merit in the revision. It is accordingly dismissed.