JUDGMENT :- Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of the parties.

2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 12/412007 passed by the 5th Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Dhule.

3. The back-ground facts of the case as disclosed in the petition are as under.

The petitioner no. 1 is a daughter of petitioner no.2 and respondent no.1 (now deceased). The respondent no.2 is the grandmother of the petitioner no. 1 , whereas the respondent nos.3 and 4 are the purchasers of the joint family property from the defendant no. 1. Respondent nos.5 to 10 are proposed respondents who are also subsequent purchasers.

The petitioner no. 1 had filed R.C.S. No.288 of 2000 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.), Dhule for partition and separate possession of the suit property.

After the death of the original defendant no.1, namely Adhar S/o. Ukha, the plaintiff no.2, who is the widow of defendant no.1, has been brought on record as plaintiff no.2. According to the plaintiff, the suit property is the joint family property. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 started disposing of the said property and have sold some of the properties to the defendant nos.3 and 4. It is averred in the plaint that the defendant no.1 ill-treated the plaintiff no.1 Indrabai and never maintained plaintiff no.1 Ratnabai as well as Indrabai. The suit properties have not been partitioned and the plaintiffs have got their joint share in the joint properties. Thus, the plaintiffs prayed that, the sale deed dated 15/1212000 and 23/9/1998 executed by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant nos.3 and 4 be declared as cancelled and it be further declared that those are not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further prayed for declaration of their share on partition and actual separate possession and mesne profits.

4. On 1/8/2002, the original defendant no. 1 had filed Written Statement and denied the contentions in the plaint. On 22/10/ 2001, Issues have been framed at Exh.28. The plaintiffs have filed application Exh.38 for injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property. On 29/7/2002, the said application has been allowed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Dhule and injunction came to be granted against the defendant.

It is specific case of the petitioners that in spite of order of injunction dated 29/7/2002, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have alienated the• portion of suit properties to various persons.

5. On 19/1/2007, the petitioners had filed an application at Exh.136 in R.C.S. 288 of 2000 and pointed out subsequent alienations, in spite of the injunction order in force against the defendants. Thus, the plaintiffs prayed for amendment in the plaint by way of addition of paragraphs 8-A and 13-E in the plaint and for addition of the subsequent purchasers named in Schedule A as the defendants in the Suit.

The said application has been resisted by the defendants on the ground that the amendment would change the nature of the Suit and also on the ground that it is barred by limitation.

6. On 12/4/2007, the 5th Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Dhule rejected application Exh. 136 on the ground that, the transaction in question are hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short 'the Act'). Therefore, the pendentelite purchasers are not the necessary parties.

7. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 12/4/2007 passed by the 5th Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Dhule below application Exh.136.

This Court by Order dated 4/5/2009, granted leave to add proposed third parties to the petition. Notices were issued to the newly added parties and in pursuance to the notice, the added proposed third parties are represented by their respective counsels.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, it is the specific case of the original plaintiff/petitioners herein in R.C.S. No.288 of 2000, that the defendant nos.3 and 4 are the purchasers of the ioint family and the sale deeds executed by the defendant nos.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document