ORDER : K. LAKSHMAN, J. Heard Sri M.Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramchander Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.1098 of 2024 in O.S.No.78 of 2020 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Karimnagar. 3. The petitioner herein/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit against the respondents 2 to 4 herein/defendants 1 to 3/D.1 to D.3 to declare him as title holder, owners and possessor of the suit schedule agricultural land (for short, ‘the subject property’) and for perpetual injunction restraining D.1 to D.3 from interfering with the suit schedule property; to declare the sale certificate, dated 06.09.2005 as not a title deed of D.1; to declare the registered sale deed bearing document No. 1096 of 2010 dated 23.04.2010 executed by D.1 in favour of D.2 as null and void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff; to declare the registered sale deed Doc.No.5387 of 2010 dated 03.08.2019 executed by D.2 in favour of D.3 as null and void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff; and to direct the revenue authorities to rectify the mutation in respect of the schedule agricultural land as shown in the schedule of property be declared as null and void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff. 4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit contending that he is the owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas comprised in Sy.No.2/1 situated at Katnapalli Village, Choppadandi Mandal, Karimnagar District (for short, ‘the suit schedule property’). The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from Bandari Mallaiah under registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1551 of 1987 dated 22.08.1987 and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. Since then, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and cultivating the said land. One Gannu Sanjeeva Reddy, filed a suit vide O.S.No.116 of 2001 before Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, for recovery of Rs.80,000/- with interest against the plaintiff herein. The said suit was decreed on 10.01.2003 and he has filed E.P.No.106 of 2003 for execution of the said judgment and decree. The said E.P. was allowed, public auction was conducted on 22.08.2005 and D.1 stood as successful bidder and deposited the amount. The sale was duly confirmed. The said suit was decreed on 10.01.2003 and he has filed E.P.No.106 of 2003 for execution of the said judgment and decree. The said E.P. was allowed, public auction was conducted on 22.08.2005 and D.1 stood as successful bidder and deposited the amount. The sale was duly confirmed. After getting the sale certificate dated 06-09-2005, D.1 failed to obtain possession of the suit schedule property. As such the plaintiff is in continuous possession of the suit schedule property without any interference to the knowledge of D.1. 5. In pahani patrika for fasli 2019, the plaintiff found the name of D.2 as pattadar and possessor. D.1 in collusion with D.2 to deprive the right of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, created the mutation proceedings with File No.B/633/2019, dated 03.12.2019 issued by the Tahsildar, in favour of D.2. On 04.12.2019, the plaintiff demanded D.2 to get the said mutation cancelled, but D.2 denied the same. Even D.1 executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.1096 of 2010, dated 23.04.2010 in favour of D.2 basing on which D.2 created mutation proceeding without any valid title. The Plaintiff is not party to the said registered sale deed and mutation proceedings. Therefore, the plaintiff sought to declare the said documents and mutation proceedings as null and void, inoperative and not binding on him. On 03.12.2009, plaintiff requested D.2 to cancel the mutation proceedings and fabricated registered sale deed bearing document No.5387 of 2019 dated 03.08.2019 executed by D.2 in favour of D.3 but he denied. 6. D.Nos.1 to 3/respondents 2 to 4 herein filed written statement in the said suit denying the averments made by the plaintiff. 7. During pendency of the said suit, 1 st respondent herein filed an application vide I.A.No.1098 of 2024 under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘CPC’) to implead him as Defendant No.4 in the suit stating that D.3 sold to him the suit schedule property to him under a registered sale deed bearing document No.869 of 2022, dated 09.05.2022 and put him in possession of the subject property. Pattadar passbooks were also issued in his favour. At the time of purchase, he had no knowledge of pendency of suit. If he is not impleaded in the suit, he would suffer irreparable loss. 8. Pattadar passbooks were also issued in his favour. At the time of purchase, he had no knowledge of pendency of suit. If he is not impleaded in the suit, he would suffer irreparable loss. 8. The plaintiff filed counter in the said I.A.No.1098 of 2024 denying the averments in the petition and contended that as per the Encumbrance Certificate dated 24.12.2024, the alleged sale deed was executed on 18.07.2022 which is prohibited by virtue of order in I.A.No.81 of 2020, dated 21.06.2022 wherein it was ordered not to alienate the suit schedule property till disposal of main suit. As such, D.4 did not acquire any right or title by virtue of the alleged registered sale deed bearing document No.869 of 2022 as D.1 to 3 failed to obtain possession of the attached property within a period of one year from the date of confirmation of sale. D.4 has no prima facie case and no locus standi. 9. Vide order dated 28.02.2025, learned Trial Court allowed the said I.A.1098 of 2024 restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. The sale deed was executed on 09.05.2022 and the same was registered on 18.07.2022. Therefore, referring to Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, learned trial Court held that interest of 1 st respondent/D.4 will be prejudiced if he is not impleaded as D.4 in the said suit. Learned Trial Court also placed reliance on Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, ‘T.P.Act’). 10. Aggrieved by the said order dated 28.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.1098 of 2024 in O.S.No.78 of 2020 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Karimnagar, the plaintiff filed the present revision contending as follows:- i. The trial Court erred in not realizing the fact that as on the date of registration of sale deed by D.2 in favour of D.3, injunction order is subsisting and D.3 had violated the order passed in I.A.No.81 of 2020 in O.S.No.78 of 2020. ii. The trial Court failed to see that D.1 to D.3 failed to recover the possession within a period of one year from the date of confirmation of sale, as such D.4 did not acquire any right or title over the suit property as the suit property is in possession of the plaintiff by virtue of Ex. P.5-report of Girdawar, Choppadandi Revenue Mandal. iii. P.5-report of Girdawar, Choppadandi Revenue Mandal. iii. The Court below failed to see that D.4 or his alleged vendor D.3 is not in possession over the suit schedule property since the sale certificate dated 06.09.2005 does not confer any title much less any legal right to transfer. iv. The trial Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the plaintiff executed mortgage deed as a security for the loan amount which was already paid by him. v. The trial Court wrongly interpreted Section 47 of Registration Act, 1908, as the sale deed is not even marked. The execution of sale deed 09.05.2022 was prior to the interim orders dated 21.06.2022 passed in I.A. No. 81 of 2020 restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property and any document executed is not binding on the parties, pending suit and the registration dated 18.07.2022 was subsequent to the said orders. Therefore, said registration does not create any third party interest. 11.The respondents 1 to 4 herein/Defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed counter denying the averments made by the petitioner herein/plaintiff contending as follows:- i. D.3 has executed a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.869/2022, dated 09.05.2022 in favour of 1 st respondent/proposed D.4 in respect of suit schedule property and put him in possession of the same. ii. Since then, 1 st respondent/ D.4 is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and cultivating the same. iii. At the time of purchase, he had no knowledge of pendency of the subject suit. He purchased the said property after verifying the revenue record of D.3 and found that D.3 was recorded as owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. iv. The trial Court held that the subject suit is connected to O.S.No.359 of 2019 and common issues were framed and to avoid further multiplicity of the proceedings and to protect the rights of 1 st respondent/proposed D.4, the trial Court rights permitted him to implead in the suit. v. Even the common order in I.A.Nos.81 and 82 of 2020, dated 21.06.2022 in O.S.No.78 of 2020 filed by d.4 and also I.A.No.85 of 2019 in O.S.No.359 of 2020 filed by the plaintiff/D.3, the trial Court allowed I.A.No.85 of 2019 but dismissed I.A.No.82 of 2020 filed by the plaintiff. 12. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/D.4 sought to dismiss the revision. 13. 12. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/D.4 sought to dismiss the revision. 13. The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that the petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.78 of 2020 and he has filed the said suit for declaration and also to declare the sale certificate registered sale deeds as null and void. He has also filed I.A.No.81 of 2020 in the said suit restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering and changing nature of the suit schedule property in any manner. Vide order dated 31.06.2022 in I.A.No.81 of 2020 in O.S.No.78 of 2020, learned trial Court restrained the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property. 14. During pendency of the said suit and I.A.No.81 of 2020, D.3 has executed a sale deed in favour of 1 st respondent/proposed D.4 on 09.05.2022 with regard to the suit schedule property. The same was registered on 18.07.2022 vide document No.869 of 2022. Thus, 1 st respondent/proposed D.4 is pendent-lite purchaser. Therefore, he sought to implead in the present suit contending that he has right and interest over the suit schedule property. Therefore he is necessary party to the said suit. It is also contended by him that if he is not impleaded in the said suit and if the suit is decreed, he will be put to irreparable loss and injury. 15. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to note that Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, deals with adding of a party to the suit and it says if the Court is satisfied that it is necessary for determination of the real matter in dispute so to add, or any person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks fit. 16. The said application can be filed at any stage of the suit as held by the Apex Court in Vidur Impex & Traders Pvt.Ltd vs Tosh Apartment Pvt. Ltd., 2012 (8) SCC 384 . 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, referring to Section 52 of T.P.Act, would contend that by virtue of execution of a registered sale deed dated 18.07.2022, the conveyance in favour of 1 st respondent/proposed D.4 by D.3 is not proper. Only on execution of registered sale deed, 1 st respondent/proposed D.4 will get rights and conveyance of subject property in his favour is complete. Only on execution of registered sale deed, 1 st respondent/proposed D.4 will get rights and conveyance of subject property in his favour is complete. He has also placed reliance of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908. 18. In the light of the same, it is relevant to note that Section 52 of the T.P.Act, deals with lis pendence and the same is extracted below:- 52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto .—During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in. which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose. 19. It is also relevant to note that Section 47 of the Registration Act, deals with time from which registered document operates and the same extracted below:- 47. Time from which registered document operates. - A registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration. 20. As discussed supra, in the present case, the petitioner/plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit O.S.No.78 of 2020 in January, 2020. He has also filed I.A.No.81 of 2020 along with the suit to restrain the defendants from alienating, encumbering and changing physical features of the suit schedule property in any manner. Vide order dated 21.06.2022, I.A.No.81 of 2020 learned trial Court restrained the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. According to the 1 st respondent/proposed D.4, D.3 had executed sale deed in his favour on 09.05.2022 with regard to suit schedule property and the same was registered on 18.07.2022 vide document No.869 of 2022. Therefore, according to the petitioner/plaintiff, the conveyance of suit schedule property in favour of 1 st respondent/ proposed D.4 was only on 18.07.2022, the date on which the aforesaid registered sale deed was executed. Therefore, according to the petitioner/plaintiff, the conveyance of suit schedule property in favour of 1 st respondent/ proposed D.4 was only on 18.07.2022, the date on which the aforesaid registered sale deed was executed. Therefore, Section 52 of T.P. Act, will come into play only from the date of execution of the registered sale deed dated 18.07.2022 by which date, order dated 21.06.2022 in I.A.No.81 of 2022 in O.S.No.78 of 2020 is subsisting. 21. The impleadment of pendente-lite purchaser is no more res integra. 22. It is settled legal position that the effect of Section 52 of the T.P.Act, is not to render transfers affected during the pendency of a suit by a party to the suit void; but only to render such transfers subservient to the rights of the parties to such suit, as may be, eventually, determined in the suit. In other words, the transfer remains valid subject, of course, to the result of the suit. The pendente lite purchaser would be entitled to or suffer the same legal rights and obligations of his vendor as may be eventually determined by the Court. The said principle was laid by the Apex Court in A.Nawab John vs. V.N.Subramaniyam , [ (2012) 7 SCC 738 ]. 23. In Sanjay Verma vs Manik Roy , [2006 (13) SCC 608] , the Apex Court held that mere pendency of a suit does not prevent one of the parties from dealing with the property constituting the subject matter of the suit. The Section only postulates a condition that the alienation will in no manner affect the rights of the other party under any decree which may be passed in the suit unless the property was alienated with the permission of the Court. 24. In A.Nawab John (supra), the Apex Court examined the scope of Section 52 of the T.P.Act, paragraph Nos.19 and 20 are relevant and extracted below:- 19. Such being the scope of Section 52, two questions arise: whether a pendente lite purchaser (1) is entitled to be impleaded as a party to the suit; (2) once impleaded what are the grounds on which he is entitled to contest the suit. 20. This Court on more than one occasion held that when a pendente lite purchaser seeks to implead himself as a party - defendant to the suit, such application should be liberally considered. 20. This Court on more than one occasion held that when a pendente lite purchaser seeks to implead himself as a party - defendant to the suit, such application should be liberally considered. This Court also held in Smt. Saila Bala Dassi v. Smt. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and Another, AIR 1958 SC 394 , that, “justice requires”, a pendente lite purchaser “should be given an opportunity to protect his rights”. It was a case, where the property in dispute had been mortgaged by one of the respondents to another respondent. The mortgagee filed a suit, obtained a decree and ‘commenced proceedings for sale of the mortgaged property’. The appellant Saila Bala, who purchased the property from the judgment-debtor subsequent to the decree sought to implead herself in the execution proceedings and resist the execution. That application was opposed on various counts. This Court opined that Saila Bala was entitled (under Section 146 of the C.P.C.) to be brought on record to defend her interest because, as a purchaser pendent elite, she would be bound by the decree against her vendor. 25. Referring to divergence of opinion taken by the Apex Court in Amit Kumar Shaw vs. Farida Khatoon, , [ (2005) 11 SCC 403 ] in A.Nawab John (supra), the Apex Court held that the preponderance of opinion is that a pendente lite purchaser’s application for impleadment should normally be allowed or “considered liberally”. 26. In Yogesh vs. Govind , [2024(4) ALT (SC 66 (DB)] , it was held that on the ground of execution of registered sale deed during pendency of the suit does not automatically render it null and void, there exists no bar to the impleadment of transferee’s pendente lite with notice. Permitting the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite, is in each case, a discretionary exercise undertaken to enable a purchaser with a legally enforceable right to protect their interests especially when the transferor fails to defend the suit or where there is a possibility of collusion. 27. Permitting the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite, is in each case, a discretionary exercise undertaken to enable a purchaser with a legally enforceable right to protect their interests especially when the transferor fails to defend the suit or where there is a possibility of collusion. 27. In H.Anjanappa vs. A.Prabhakar , Civil Appeal Nos.1180-1181 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Civil)Nos.5785-5786 of 2023) the Apex Court laid down certain parameters to implead a transferee pendente lite, the same are as follows:- i. First, for the purpose of impleading a transferee pendente lite, the facts and circumstances should be gone into and basing on the necessary facts, the Court can permit such a party to come on record, either under Order I Rule 10 CPC or under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, as a general principle; ii. Secondly, a transferee pendente lite is not entitled to come on record as a matter of right; iii. T hirdly, there is no absolute rule that such a transferee pendente lite, with the leave of the Court should, in all cases, be allowed to come on record as a party; iv. Fourthly, the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite would depend upon the nature of the suit and appreciation of the material available on record; v. Fifthly, where a transferee pendente lite does not ask for leave to come on record, that would obviously be at his peril, and the suit may be improperly conducted by the plaintiff on record; vi. Sixthly, merely because such transferee pendente lite does not come on record, the concept of him (transferee pendente lite) not being bound by the judgment does not arise and consequently he would be bound by the result of the litigation, though he remains unrepresented; vii. Seventhly, the sale transaction pendente lite is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act; and, viii. v iii. Eighthly, a transferee pendente lite, being an assignee of interest in the property, as envisaged under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, can seek leave of the Court to come record on his own or at the instance of either party to the suit. 28. In the said case, the Apex Court also examined the scope of Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 10 and Section 146 of CPC. 28. In the said case, the Apex Court also examined the scope of Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 10 and Section 146 of CPC. It was further held that under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, the Court is required to find a record that a person impleaded is either necessary or proper party. The Court has to consider whether the rights of the pendent lite purchaser would be prejudicially effected by the judgment to be passed in the suit. 29. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, coming to the facts of the case on hand, as discussed supra, the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit on 27.01.2020 and also filed I.A.No.81 of 2020 along with the said suit. The said suit and I.As. were pending. Vide order dated 21.06.2022 in I.A.No.81 of 2020, learned trial Court restrained the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. During pendency of the said suit and I.A., D.3 had executed sale deed in favour of 1 st respondent/proposed D.4 with regard to suit schedule property on 09.05.2022. The same was registered on 18.07.2022 vide sale deed bearing document No.869 of 2022. In the said sale deed, there is specific mention that D.3- vendor, has received total sale consideration from respondent No.1/proposed D.4 and he was put in possession of the suit schedule property. On 18.07.2022, the said sale deed was registered. Admittedly, the same will operate only from 18.07.2022 in terms of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908. Vide order dated 21.06.2022 in I.A.No.81 of 2022 in O.S.No.78 of 2020, learned trial Court restrained defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. Thus, as on 09.05.2022, there was no order prohibiting D.3 from alienating the suit schedule property. Mere pendency of the suit and I.A., is not a bar to D.3 in alienating the suit schedule property. However, the same is subject to Section 52 of the T.P.Act. 30. The suit schedule property in O.S.No.78 of 2020 is agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.2/1 situated at Katnapalli Village, Choppidandi Mandal, Karimnagar District. The Schedule property in the aforesaid registered sale deed bearing document No.869 of 2022 dated 18.07.2022 is Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.2/1 of Katnapalli village. Therefore, the suit schedule property in the said suit and schedule property in the said registered sale deed is one and the same. Boundaries are also same. The Schedule property in the aforesaid registered sale deed bearing document No.869 of 2022 dated 18.07.2022 is Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.2/1 of Katnapalli village. Therefore, the suit schedule property in the said suit and schedule property in the said registered sale deed is one and the same. Boundaries are also same. Therefore, 1 st respondent/proposed D.4 has interest and right over the suit schedule property. If he is not impleaded, his rights over the subject property will be effected prejudicially. Therefore, he is a necessary and proper party to the present suit. Upon consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order dated 28.02.2025, learned trial Court allowed I.A.No.1098 of 2024. 31. With regard to the contention of the petitioner/plaintiff that to defeat the order dated 21.06.2022 in I.A.No.81 of 2020, 1 st respondent/proposed D.4 and D.3 are claiming that D.3 has executed a sale deed on 09.05.2022 in favour of 1 st respondent/proposed D.4 and got it registered only on 18.07.2022. There was no payment of consideration to D.3 by 1 st respondent/Proposed D.4 on 09.05.2022. However, the same are triable issues which the plaintiff has to take during trial and it is for the trial Court to consider the same. The plaintiff will be given an opportunity to cross-examine 1 st respondent/proposed D.4 with regard to payment of sale consideration to D.3 on 09.05.2022 and recitals of the said sale deed. At this stage, this Court cannot dismiss the application filed by 1 st respondent/proposed D.4 seeking impleadment. 32. Sri M.Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in Arjan Singh vs. Punit Ahluwalia , [ (2008) 8 SCC 348 ] wherein the Apex Court held that any transaction in violation of the order passed by the Court is void and it is hit by Section 52 of the T.P.Act. 33. As discussed supra, in the present case, the facts are slightly different. The order of the trial Court was on 21.06.2022, according to the 1 st respondent/proposed D.4, the sale deed was executed on 09.05.2022 itself and the same was registered on 18.07.2022. As discussed supra, the plaintiff would be given an opportunity to cross- examine 1 st respondent/proposed D.4 with regard to payment of sale consideration, possession etc., during trial and trial Court will consider the same. 34. As discussed supra, the plaintiff would be given an opportunity to cross- examine 1 st respondent/proposed D.4 with regard to payment of sale consideration, possession etc., during trial and trial Court will consider the same. 34. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Ghanshyam Sarda vs. Sashikant Jha, Director of M/s J.K.Jute Mill Company Limited , [ (2017) 1 SCC 599 ] . In the said case also, conveyance deed for sale was executed before the Court order, registration of the said deed was done after passing of interim order prohibiting disposal of the subject property. It was held that it amounts to contempt of Court and will not be invalidated. The Apex Court also places reliance on the principle laid down by it in Suraj Lamp Industries Private Limited vs. State of Haryana , [ (2012) 1 SCC 656 ] wherein it was held by the Apex Court held in paragraph No.19 as follows:- 19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of sections 54 and 55 of TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under section 53A of TP Act). According to TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of TP Act enacts that sale of immoveable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter. 35. Referring to the said principles and also consideration of Section 47 of the Registration Act, Sections 52, 53, 54 of T.P. Act, the Apex Court held that the principle embodied under Section 47 of the Registration Act is completely for different purposes. Insofar as the issue of transfer is concerned, Section 54 of the TP Act, is the governing principle, which is quite clear. It is the date of registration of the document which is crucial inasmuch as the transfer is effected and the title passes only upon registration. 36. As discussed supra, the facts therein are slightly different to that of present case. 37. It is the date of registration of the document which is crucial inasmuch as the transfer is effected and the title passes only upon registration. 36. As discussed supra, the facts therein are slightly different to that of present case. 37. On consideration of the said aspects only, learned trial Court allowed the application filed by him vide impugned order dated 28.02.2025. It is a reasoned order and well – founded. The petitioner herein/plaintiff failed to make any case to interfere with the said order. Therefore, this revision is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.