RAM PRASANNA SHARMA, J.

1. This first appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against judgment/ decree dated 28.06.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhatapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 7-A/2005, wherein the said court decreed the suit filed by the appellant/ plaintiff and the appeal is regarding modification of the decree regarding share of appellant and respondents No. 1 to 4 (Respondent No. 1 died on 25.05.2014).

2. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2012, application filed by one Santosh Kumar Agrawal under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for impleading him as respondent No. 6 for the reason that respondent No. 1-Bisouha Ram Sahu executed a registered sale deed in favour of this applicant on 08.04.2005 for land bearing Survey No. 471 area admeasuring 0.837 Hectare (2.07 acre) situated at VillagePendri, Patwari Halka No. 6, Revenue Circle- Bhatapara, DistrictRaipur (C.G.).

3. The appellant/ plaintiff adduced evidence of Mohit Ram (PW-1), Rama Sahu (PW-2) & Bahadur (PW-3) and produced document Ex.P/1 to P/11 while respondent side adduced evidence of Bisouha Ram Sahu (DW-1) & Nandu (DW-2). From evidence of both side, it is clear that property is ancestral property and partition did not take place between Bisouha Ram Sahu and his son namely Mohit Ram & Mohan Lal and Khorbahara. Survey No. 471 area admeasuring 0.837 acre is joint property as per Ex. P/3 & P/7.

4. Looking to the entire evidence, it is established that the property in question is joint family property which is not partitioned. The applicant is claiming his right on the basis of sale deed executed in his favour by Bisouha Ram Sahu, but Bisouha Ram Sahu had no right to alienate specific portion of land without consent of other coparceners namely Mohit Ram, Mohan Lal and Khorbahara.

5. In the matter of Hardeo Rai Vs. Sakuntala Devi & others, (2008) 7 SCC 46, it is held that the coparcenary interest can be transferred subject to the condition that the purchaser without the consent of other coparceners cannot get possession of what he has purchased. Such a purchaser however, acquires a right to sue for partition (Para 26).

6. In view of the above, the applicant can file a suit for partition between Bisouha Ram Sahu and other three coparceners and he can get possession of the land which comes in share of Bisouha Ram Sahu. In the present case, suit was filed on 10.12.2004 and sale deed in question was executed on 08.04.2005 i.e. after institution of the suit, therefore, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 will be applicable in the present case as per doctrine of lis pendens and right of the purchaser/ applicant is subject to outcome of the litigation. After all, the applicant will get property which comes in share of Bisouha Ram Sahu, therefore, he is not entitled to be impleaded as party in a suit for partition between coparceners. As the applicant is stranger to joint hindu family, he cannot be impleaded in a suit which is between members of joint hindu family. Accordingly, application is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

7. The suit was filed by the appellant/ plaintiff before the trial court on the ground that the property mentioned in Ex.P/1 to P/8 area admeasuring 6.181 Hectare is recorded in the name of Nanku and Bisouha Ram Sahu and it was joint hindu family property. The appellant and respondents No. 2 & 3 being three sons of Bisouha Ram Sahu are coparceners with Bisouha Ram Sahu. Bisouha Ram Sahu sold the property bearing Survey No. 554/1 area admeasuring 1.343 Hectare to his wife namely Kewra Bai without partition as per Ex. P/9. On the date of execution of sale deed, Bisouha Ram Sahu was not authorized to sell any specific land, but he was authorized to sell the undivided interest, therefore, sale deed did not confer any right on Kewra Bai for specific portion of land. First, notional partition between Bisouha Ram Sahu and his sons will take place and thereafter, wife o