JUDGMENT:- The petitioner had filed Regular Civil Suit No.65 of 1985 against respondent nos. 1 to 11 seeking a declaration of his title and ownership over certain suit property, on the ground that he had purchased the suit property in the name of one Narayan, through whom respondent nos.1 to 11 claimed title over the suit property. According to petitioner, Narayan was only a "Benamidar" and the petitioner himself is the real owner of that property.

2. During pendency of the suit, defendant nos.12 and 13 claimed to have purchased the property from other defendants. They, therefore, made an application [Exh.262] before Trial Court to implead themselves as defendants, as the title to the property has been transferred to them by other defendants. That application was allowed by the Trial Court as per the impugned order dated 9th December, 2003. That order is challenged in the present petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. On perusal of the record and in view of the facts noted above, it is clear that the plaintiff has tiled the suit for declaration of his title and ownership, and naturally he has to prove that title to get the declaration. If he succeeds in proving his title, the sale by other defendants, having no title over the property, to defendant nos.12 and 13 cannot confer any title on the purchasers. However, if the plaintiff fails to prove his title over the property, the purchasers may claim title over the property on the basis of sale in their favour by other defendants.

5. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly provides that during the pendency of the suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable 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. Naturally, the principles of lis pendens will be applicable to the transaction between defendant nos.12 and 13 on one hand and other defendants on the other hand, and the said transaction cannot affect the right and title, if any, of the plaintiff

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a temporary injunction operating against respondent nos.1 to 11 against alienation of property to any third party, pending the suit and the sale transaction is in violation of the said injunction and, therefore, the respondent nos.12 and 13 are not necessary parties, and need not be impleaded. In support of this, he placed reliance upon a reported judgment of this Court in case of Keshrimal Jivji Shah & another Vs. Bank of Maharashtra & ors. [2004(3) Mh. L.J. 893]. That was a matter between the Financial Institution, i.e., the Bank of Maharashtra and its debtor, and in violation of the temporary injunction, the property was sold. In the said case, it was held by this Court that the transfer of immovable property in violation of order of injunction or prohibition is no transfer and it confers no right, title or interest on the transferee. In fact, that very principle is specifically incorporated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act itself.

7. In Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb & another [AIR 2004 SC 173), there were two cross suits filed, one for redemption of mortgage and another for specific performance of contract and the suits were pending for a long time. Therein, a third party, who claimed to have purchased the property pending the suits without leave of the Court, sought to be impleaded as a defendant. That application was rejected. The Supreme court held that the rejection is proper. In that matter, it appears that the parties were actually contesting two suits and the alienation in favour of the transferee was not found to be bona fide and, therefore, the application was rejected.

8. In the present case, the petitioner claims title over the property on the ground that he is the real owner and deceased Narayan was a Benamidar, Natur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document