Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 992 (ALL)

Aneeta Devi v. Vinod Kumar

2015-04-27

SUNEET KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT Suneet Kumar, J. The petitioner/applicant has come up in writ jurisdiction challenging the order dated 3 February 2015 passed by the Appellate Court under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 whereby the petitioner's application (paper no. 18Ga) for impleadment has been rejected. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second respondent/landlord filed a suit against the first respondent. 3. It is contended that the third respondent, Jamaluddin has entered into an agreement to sell with the applicant in respect to the property in dispute on 20 September 2001, however, the property was subsequently sold to the second respondent, Azmatullah hence the present application for impleadment to the appeal was filed. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already preferred a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell. 4. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the Court below have recorded a finding that the sale deed in respect of the property in question is in favour of the second respondent, Azmatullah, further the agreement to sell is an unregistered document and hence cannot be executed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and the impugned order dated 3 February 2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 81 of 2014 (Vinod Kumar vs. Azmatullah). 6. The Court below has noted in the impugned order that on the basis of an agreement to sell, petitioner cannot claim title to the property in question and any finding recorded in summary proceedings under U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 would not operate as res judicata. It is admitted by the applicant/petitioner that the sale deed is in favour of the second respondent, Azmatullah. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. No order as to costs.