Transferees of property during the pendency of a suit have a right to be impleaded as parties to the suit and contest the suit to protect their interests in the property.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 30. 7. 1997, whereby it has remanded the case to the trial court to decide the rights of the parties on merits.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that the petitioners instituted Suit No. 4 of 1995 on 3. 8. 1995 in respect of the properties relating to village Shamaspur Panju, Pargana and Tahsil Sahaswan, district budaun and Suit No. 5 of 1995 in respect of properties of village Yahiyapur, Pargana and Tahsil sahaswan, district Budaun under Section 22b of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms act in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer against Smt. Hira Devi alleging that she had remarried with Siya Ram. The petitioners being brothers of Bihari, after remarriage of Smt. Hira devi succeeded to the rights of Bihari. The notices were issued to Smt. Hira Devi. The summons were returned unserved. The notices were sent by registered post but neither the envelope nor acknowledgment due were received back.

( 3 ) SMT. Hira Devi before the institution of the suit by the petitioners on 3rd August, 1995, had executed a sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 on 29th June, 1995. During the pendency of the suit, they filed an application before the trial court that Smt. Hira Devi had executed the sale deed in their favour and they should be impleaded as parties. The trial court rejected the application. It was held that the service of the notice against Smt. Hira Devi was sufficient and proceeded to decide the suits ex parte. On 11. 3. 1996, the trial court passed ex parts decree declaring the petitioners as Bhumidhars of the land in suit. Against the aforesaid decision, hira Devi and the transferees from Hira Devi. i. e. , respondent Nos. 6 and 7 filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner on 18th March. 1996 on the finding that the notice against Smt. Hira Devi was sent and as she did not appear in the suit, there was no error in the decree passed by the trial court. The appeal of the transferees was not held to be maintainable as they were transferees from Hira Devi. Against the said decision respondent Nos. 6 and 7 filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has allowed the revision holding that the transferees had a right to contest the case. Their applications were wrongly rejected by the trial court. Respondent No. 1 directed that the case be decided after giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent Nos. 6 to 8.

( 4 ) SHRI Anil Bhushan. learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the transferees were neither necessary nor proper parties. Smt. Hira Devi had executed the sale deed and after the sale deed having been executed, the transferees were bound by the decision given in the suit. He has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh and others, 1996 (5) SCC 539, wherein it was held that a transferee was bound by a decree passed in a suit and any alienation by a party to the suit during the pendency of the suit would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens by operation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. In this case, the appellants therein were claiming declaration of their rights over the land in dispute on the basis of registered Will executed by their mother. They had filed suit for adjudication of their rights. The civil court decreed the suit on 29. 3. 1974. Subsequently, another suit was filed against the defendants for injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession. During the pendency of the suit the defendants executed a sale deed on 2. 12. 1991. These transferees applied for their impleadment under Order I, Rule 10. C. P. C. The High Court had directed for their impleadment. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that as the matter regarding title had already been decided, the decision already given was binding upon them. The transferees were neither necessary nor proper parties. The transaction was