The main legal point established in the judgment is the justification of impleadment of subsequent purchasers as necessary and proper parties, with substantial rights likely to be affected, and the need for proper adjudication of issues to protect their legal rights.

Jaspal Singh, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment dated February 02, 2015 passed by the lower appellate court whereby after setting aside judgment & decree dated December 22, 2009 passed in case titled ‘The SMDR Sanatan Dharam College, Pathankot vs. Ashok Plato & others’, the case has been remanded back to the trial court while allowing an application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for impleading the subsequent purchasers as party.

2. The facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that appellant – plaintiff, The SMDR Sanatan Dharam College, Pathankot (for short, ‘College’) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is owner in possession of the land fully detailed and described in head note of the plaint and sale deed dated December 21, 1995 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 9 on behalf of defendant No. 10 in favour of defendant Nos.11 to 15 is illegal, null and void, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction. The case set up by the appellant – plaintiff before the trial court was that the College is a registered society. One Chaudhary Malla Singh, a big landlord, extended his help in opening the educational institutions in Punjab and Himachal Pradesh during his life time. In order to further advance the noble cause of education, Chaudhary Dhian Singh son of Malla Singh donated 70 acres of land vide registered gift deed dated May 28, 1959 in favour of appellant – plaintiff consisting of the suit land. The possession of suit land was delivered to the appellant – plaintiff. An entry was also incorporated and sanctioned in this regard in the revenue record showing the Sanatan Dharam College Security Trust, Pathankot as owner in possession of the suit land. It has further been alleged that defendant Nos.1 to 9, in order to grab the property of Trust, floated their fake Trust of similar name and fabricated Trust deed dated June 13, 1995 in the name of Sanatan Dharam College Security Trust, Pathankot, and succeeded in procuring the registration from the Registrar of Societies. Even, they also succeeded in alienating the suit land to defendant Nos.11 to 15 vide sale deeds dated December 21, 1995 and December 22, 1995 and also got the mutation sanctioned. Defendant Nos.11 to 15 were fully aware that their vendors have no right to sell the property but they also joined hands and conspired, and succeeded in getting the sale deeds executed in their favour.

3. The suit was hotly resisted by all the defendants. Issues out of pleadings were also framed. Parties led their evidence in order to establish their respective claims.

4. After thorough analysis of the matter, material on record and the law applicable to the facts & circumstances of the case, the trial court arrived at a positive finding that the revenue record depicts the ownership of College and the defendants have failed to lead any oral or documentary evidence in their favour. It was also specifically held by the trial court that the College/Trust alleged to have been created by defendant Nos.1 to 9 is not a genuine one. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that the appellant – plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land. It was also specifically held by the trial court that defendant Nos.11 to 15 are not bona fide purchasers. Consequently, suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff was decreed in toto by the trial court vide its judgment & decree dated December 22, 2009.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment & decree dated December 22, 2009 passed by the trial court, defendant Nos.11, 12, 14 and 15 preferred an appeal before the first appellate court on January 27, 2010. During the pendency of the said appeal, two applications were filed by the subsequent purchasers under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC and under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for their impleadment as party in appeal. One such application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was moved by Sunit Kumar son of Balwant Rai, resident of Village Bharoli Kalan, Tehsil & District P