A purchaser not impleaded in a suit cannot be bound by an ex-parte decree against previous owners, and their rights are superior if acquired before the suit.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.

In this execution second appeal, the appellant assails the correctness of Executing Court's order dated 30.04.2014, which in appeal has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The appellant before this court is the purchaser of a residential plot by virtue of a sale deed dated 14.08.2007. She has constructed a residential house consisting of two floors and electricity connection has been issued in her name.

2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

3. Sh. Inderjit Singh son of Sh. Gurdev Singh was exclusive owner in possession of land comprised in khewat no.232. He sold 300 square yards plot (30feetx60feet) in favour of Smt. Jarnail Kaur widow of Sh. Girdhari Lal vide sale deed dated 24.10.1988, who in turn sold the property in favour of Shri Pal Singh vide sale deed dated 03.09.1990. Subsequently, Sh. Shri Pal Singh sold the property in favour of Sh. Harbans Lal vide registered sale deed dated 18.06.2001, who in turn sold the property in favour of Sh. Ram Diya Sharma vide sale deed dated 09.03.2006. Subsequently, Sh. Satish Kumar and Sh. Sanjiv Kumar sons of Sh. Mani ram (Judgment Debtors) purchased the property by virtue of sale deed dated 10.07.2007 from Sh. Ram Diya Sharma. These purchasers namely, Sh. Satish Kumar and Sh. Sanjiv Kumar sold the property to the appellant vide registered sale deed dated 14.08.2007. The respondent-decree holder claims that she is owner of the property by virtue of sale deed dated 04.08.1995. She filed suit for grant of decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the construction. The said suit was on 24.08.2007, while impleading Sh. Satish Kumar, Sh. Sanjiv Kumar and Sh. Sham Lal as defendants. Sh. Satish Kumar and Sh. Sanjiv Kumar appeared in the court and stated that they have no concern with the suit property and they had not raised any construction. Defendant no.3 is plaintiff's (decree holder's vendor). He also did not contest the suit. Defendants did not lead any evidence. The suit was decreed on 24.01.2012. He filed an application under Order 21, Rule 32 CPC in which the appellant filed objection. Both the Courts have dismissed the objection on the ground that she had knowledge of the pendency of the suit but decided to adopt wait and watch policy.

4. The learned counsel representing the respondents submits that when the Local Commissioner went on the spot and he informed the appellant. He submits that the mutation of the property in favour of the appellant was sanctioned on 04.09.2007 i.e after the filing of the suit.

5. In this case, the learned counsel representing the appellant has not come forward to assist the Court, however, this court has gone through the file.

6. In the considered opinion of this court, the orders passed by both the courts are perverse. It is admitted fact that the appellant purchased the property before filing of the suit. She was not impleaded as party-defendant in the case. It was a civil suit. Hence, the judgment is in-personam. The same is binding only on the defendants. Secondly, there is no evidence to the fact that the appellant had knowledge of the pendency of the suit. The observations of the courts that the Local Commissioner may have informed the appellant is far fetched. Moreover, once it came to the notice of the decree holder that the appellant has constructed the house in the year 2007, it was the duty of the decree holder to implead her as a party. The First Appellate Court has also erred in observing that the decree was passed in favour of the decree holder after full fledged trial. In fact, neither defendant nos.1 and 2 nor defendant no.3 contested the case. They did not lead any evidence. The decree was in the nature of ex-parte decree. Moreover, the appellant shall not be bound by the aforesaid decree because she was never impleaded as party.

7. Additionally, the appellant's rights are flowing from