RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The purchasers from the defendant in this suit for partition of immovable property claim substitution in place of the defendant. The application is opposed by the defendant only to the extent of substitution. The defendant otherwise has no objection to the impleadment of the applicants as a party to the suit. The plaintiffs, however, oppose substitution or even impleadment of the applicants as parties.

.2. This suit for partition has been pending since 1994 and the plaintiffs and the defendant have already concluded their evidence and the suit is ripe for final arguments. The plaintiffs claimed that each of the plaintiffs No.1 to 6 and the defendant have a 1/7th share in the property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the predecessor of the parties was a member of the cooperative society which had allotted the land; that the said predecessor with the consent of all the parties transferred the said land in the name of the defendant being the eldest son so as to enable grant of government loan for house construction, the defendant being in government service. The defendant contested the suit claiming to be the sole owner of the property.

3. There was an interim order in the suit restraining the defendant from selling the property. The defendant, however, notwithstanding the said interim order admittedly executed and registered a sale deed in favour of the applicants. Separate applications for taking action against the defendant and applicants for violation of the interim order of the court are pending.

4. The contention of the senior counsel for the plaintiffs is that the sale deed executed by the defendant in favour of the applicants being in violation of the order of the court, is nonest and void. Reliance is placed on Surjit Singh Vs. Harbans Singh (1995) 6 SCC 50.

5. The senior counsels for the applicants on the other hand have relied upon Savitri Devi Vs. Distt. Judge Gorakhpur (1999) 2 SCC 577 where Surjit Singh (Supra) was considered and distinguished.

6. In Savitri Devi the suit was for recovery of maintenance and for creation of charge therefor on ancestral properties of family. The defendants in that case also were injuncted by interim order from transferring the properties; they however, in breach of injunction order sold the property. The purchasers applied for impleadment. It was contended by the plaintiff in that case that the sale being in breach, contempt and disregard of order of injunction, the applicants therein got no title to the property in order to get impleaded. The application for impleadment was allowed. The plaintiff took the matter to apex court and relied upon Surjit Singh (Supra). However, the apex court relying on Khem Chand Shankar Choudhari Vs. Vishnu Hari Patil (1983) 1 SCC 18 held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in immovable property subject matter of suit has a right to be impleaded. Surjit Singh (supra) was distinguished because (i) in that case there was an assignment of rights under a preliminary decree and which was held not capable of conveying any rights to the assignees and (ii) in that case there was no dispute that the assignors and the assignee had knowledge of the order of injunction. The apex court held that impleadment of purchasers during pendency of suit, and in violation of interim order was warranted.

.7. Thus it follows that a sale deed of immovable property executed in violation/contempt of interim order of injunction is not nonest or void, as contended by the plaintiffs in the present case. It also cannot be said that no right in immovable property subject matter of suit has passed to the applicants, under such a sale deed. In a given case, where sale deed is executed in violation of interim order, the court may direct status quo ante by ordering reconveyance to be executed by the erring parties or asking the erring parties to join in execution of conveyance in favour of party ultimately found entitled to the same. The Apex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document