The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rights and obligations of assignees during the pendency of a suit are governed by the concept of lis pendens as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, and that the court has a legal obligation to grant relief to parties in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

P.S. RANA, J.

1. Application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 CPC by applicant Subhash Thakur for impleading the applicant as co-defendant in civil suit No. 4 of 2007 titled Raja Ashok Pal Sen vs. Smt. Raj Kumari Indira Mahindra and others.

Brief facts of the case

2. Raja Ashok Pal Sen filed civil suit No. 4 of 2007 titled Raja Ashok Pal Sen vs. Smt. Raj Kumari Indira Mahindra and others pleaded therein that decree of declaration be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants to the effect that plaintiff is absolute owner in possession of suit property on the basis of settlement deed dated 10.11.2000 and on the basis of acknowledgement made by co-defendant No.1 in her affidavit dated 11.5.2000. It is pleaded that defendants have no right title or interest in suit property and right title or interest of defendants in suit property ceased after execution of settlement deed and affidavit. Additional relief of declaration also sought to the effect that sale deed dated 24.4.2008 registered in the office of Registrar at Sr. No. 251 in favour of co-defendants Nos. 9 to 11 with respect to suit property is illegal null and void and did not effect right title or interest of plaintiff in the suit property. It is pleaded that plaintiff continuous to be absolute owner in possession of suit property on the basis of settlement deed dated 11.5.2000 followed by affidavit dated 11.5.2000. It is pleaded that defendants be restrained from interfering in any manner in possession of suit property. It is pleaded that co-defendants Nos. 1 to 3 have illegally wrongly and without jurisdiction manipulated cancellation of mutation No. 146 dated 18.8.2000 and it is pleaded that order of cancellation of mutation dt. 31.8.2005 is also illegal without jurisdiction and did not effect the right of plaintiff in suit property. Alternative additional relief also sought by plaintiff to the effect that sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of co-defendants No. 4 to 11 with respect to suit property is also illegal null and void and is not binding upon the plaintiff and prayer also sought that defendants Nos. 4 to 11 be directed to re-transfer the suit property in favour of plaintiff. It is pleaded that on the failure of co-defendants Nos. 4 to 11 to re-transfer the property in favour of plaintiff decree of injunction be also passed in favour of plaintiff along with costs of suit.

3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of contesting defendants and issues framed in Civil Suit No. 4 of 2007 on 29.3.2011 and additional issues also framed on 20.3.2012. Thereafter as per request of learned Advocates civil suit No. 4 of 2007 referred to mediator for settlement of dispute inter se the parties. In the meanwhile present application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed.

4. There is recital in OMP No. 217 of 2015 that during the pendency of civil suit applicant entered into an agreement to sale dated 4.7.2015 with co-defendant No.9 Shri Khub Ram and co-defendant No.9 Khub Ram agreed to sell land in consideration amount of Rs.5000000/- (Rupees fifty lacs only) and took whole consideration amount of Rs.5000000/- (Rupees fifty lacs only). It is pleaded that in view of agreement dated 4.7.2015 relating to suit property involved in civil suit No. 4 of 2007 applicant is assignee during pendency of civil suit No. 4 of 2007 and interest in suit property has devolved during pendency of civil suit and applicant be impleaded as co-defendant in civil suit No.4 of 2007.

5. Per contra response filed on behalf of non-applicant/plaintiff pleaded therein that application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and ad-interim injunction was sought and ad-interim injunction was passed by Court in civil suit No. 4 of 2007 but despite interim injunction applicant has entered into an agreement with co-defendant No.9 Sh. Khub Ram and further pleaded that agreement executed by applicant is governed under the concept of lispen