Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRAKASH PADIA, J.
Manoj Kumar Parashar and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 2029 of 2020
Decided On : 19-03-2021
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Order 22 Rule 10 - Section 151 - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Section 8(4) and 33 - Transfer of Property Act - Section 52 - Whether petitioners are owner of the land in question - Pendency of a suit by a party - Surplus/excess land - Execution of sale deed - Suit for specific performance of prior agreement to sell filed by the buyer against original owner/transferor/seller pendente lite - On basis of alleged power of attorney executed registered sale deed for land in question - Respondent no.3 filed an application supported with an affidavit under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 22 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC in Misc. in Case for impleading them as party as applicant/appellant no. 3 - Petitioners filed reply 174C to impleadment application and submitted that petitioners have never executed any power of attorney and never authorized anyone to sell or otherwise deal with their share in land in question and denied execution of power of attorney and also denied execution of sale deeds and impleadment application is not legally maintainable and is liable to be quashed - District Judge allowed impleadment application of respondent no. 3.
Finding of the Court:
It is settled legal position that effect of Section 52 is not to render transfers effected during pendency of a suit by a party to suit void, but only to render such transfers subservient to rights of the parties to such suit, as may be, eventually, determined in suit. In other words, transfer remains valid subject of course, to the result of the suit - Pendente lite purchaser would be entitled to, or suffer same legal rights and obligations of his vendor as may be eventually determined by court - Mere pendency of suit does not prevent one of the parties to suit from dealing with the subject matter of suit - Section only postulates a condition that lis pendens alienation will in no manner affect the rights of other party under any decree, which may be passed in the suit unless the property alienated with permission of the Court.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. Heard Sri. Amit Kumar Mishra, counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Anil Kumar Sharma, counsel for the respondent no. 3.
2. The petitioners have preferred present petition inter-alia with the following prayer:-
3. The facts in brief as contained in the petition is that the dispute is regarding the property bearing Khasra Plots No. 134-A measuring 2 bighas 11 biswas 9 biswansis and 7 kachwansis and plot no. 134-B measuring 4 bighas 11 biswas and 10 biswansis equivalent to 16495.8015 sq. meter situated in Village Tora, Tehsil and District Agra and the petitioners are owner of the land in question, which is clear from fasli year 1422-27, i.e. for the year 2015-20. The competent authority has declared the above mentioned land in question as surplus/excess land under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in Case No. 4955/3605 of 1976-77 on 5.6.1980. Aggrieved against the order dated 5.6.1980, the father of the petitioners filed Misc. Appeal No. 487 of 1985 (Babulal vs. State of U.P. and Others) under Section 33 of the U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The said misc. appeal was dismissed in default. Against the order of dismissal petitioners filed the restoration application no. 4ga, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 235 of 2006 (Krishna Kumar Parashar and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others). The aforesaid restoration application was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite parties and 18.07.2006 was date fixed for objection and disposal by the District Judge, Agra. Mr. Anup Kumar executed power of attorney on 29.01.2016 in the name of Gaurav Parashar for 1/4 part of the land in question. On the basis of power of attorney the Gaurav Parashar on 30.01.2016 executed registered sale deed in the name of Vikas Jain for the land in question. Manoj Kumar executed alleged power of attorney on 24.06.2016 in the name of Ashish Upadhay which was registered on 02.07.2016 for 1/3rd part of khata no. 84 khasra no. 134 area 0.1040 hectare and khata no. 92 khasra no. 134 area 1.6480 hectare. On the basis of alleged power of attorney Ashish Upadhaya on 4.7.2016 executed registered sale deed in the name of Vikas Jain for the land in question. On 23.04.2019 respondent no. 3 filed an application no. 158-ka supported with an affidavit no. 159ka under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 22 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC in Misc. in Case No. 235 of 2006 for impleading them as party as applicant/appellant no. 3. On 26.4.2019 petitioners filed reply 174C to the impleadment application dated 23.4.2019 and submitted that petitioners have never executed any power of attorney and never authorized anyone to sell or otherwise deal with their share in the land in question and denied the execution of power of attorney dated 29.01.2016 and 24.06.2016 and also denied the execution of sale deeds dated 30.01.2016 and 04.07.2016 and therefore the impleadment application is not legally maintainable and is liable to be quashed. The private respondent has given the reply. The District Judge, Agra allowed the impleadment application no. 158-ka of respondent no. 3 on 18.01.2020.
4. Mr. Moti Singh, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer.
5. Normally as a public policy, once a suit has been filed pertaining to any subject matter of the property, in order to put an end to such kind of litigation, principals of lis pendens has been evolved so that litigation may finally terminate without the intervention of a third party. This is because of public policy, otherwise no litigation will come to an end. Therefore, in order to discourage that same sub
Civil Law - Impleadment application - Pendente lite purchaser - Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act that Supreme Court has emphasized that a transferee pendente lite is not void ab initio. It only....
A pendente lite purchaser can be added as a party to ongoing litigation to protect substantial interests, and such applications should typically be granted without prejudice.
Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction—A transferee pendente lite, without leave of court, cannot claim to be impleaded as a matter of right.
The court emphasized that a transfer pending litigation is not void but subservient to the ongoing suit, affirming judicial discretion to allow impleadment to protect bona fide purchasers' rights.
(1) Lis Pendens – Section 52 of T.P. Act has no application where transfer in favour of subsequent purchaser is not after filing of suit but before filing of suit for specific performance.(2) Resista....
The doctrine of lis pendens applies to subsequent purchasers; their rights are subordinate to those of the decree holder in a specific performance case.
The doctrine of lis pendens prevents a subsequent purchaser from acquiring rights in property under litigation; such purchasers are not necessary parties to the suit.
Lis pendens purchasers are not necessary or proper parties in a specific performance suit, as their absence does not impede the passing of an effective decree.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
