Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
Smt. Savitri Devi - Petitioner
Versus
Civil Judge Junior Division Court No. 22 Barabanki and Ors. - Respondents
Writ - C No. 1006851 of 2011
Decided On : 25-01-2024
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Scope of provisions contained in Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act - The court discussed the scope of provisions contained in Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the implications of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act on the impleadment application. The court emphasized the discretion of the court to make subsequent transferee a party and the subservient nature of transfer pendente lite to the rights eventually determined by the court in pending litigation. The court highlighted the substantial interest of the petitioner in the suit property and the necessity of the petitioner as a party in the proceedings. The court also emphasized that the effect of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act on the gift deed could have been adequately adjudicated by the trial court by framing an issue and permitting the parties to lead evidence, rather than deciding it at the preliminary stage while considering the application for impleadment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought impleadment in a suit for cancellation of a sale deed based on a gift deed executed during the pendency of the suit. The trial court rejected the impleadment application, citing Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which renders the gift deed void. The petitioner argued that the trial court's decision was arbitrary and that the issue of the gift deed's validity should have been decided after due process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had a substantial interest in the suit property and was a necessary party. The court emphasized the discretion of the court to make subsequent transferee a party and the subservient nature of transfer pendente lite to the rights eventually determined by the court in pending litigation. The court set aside the trial court's order and allowed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the scope of provisions contained in Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the implications of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act on impleadment applications, and the necessity of the petitioner as a party in the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the discretion of the court to make subsequent transferee a party and the subservient nature of transfer pendente lite to the rights eventually determined by the court in pending litigation. The court highlighted the substantial interest of the petitioner in the suit property and the necessity of the petitioner as a party in the proceedings. The court also emphasized that the effect of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act on the gift deed could have been adequately adjudicated by the trial court by framing an issue and permitting the parties to lead evidence, rather than deciding it at the preliminary stage while considering the application for impleadment.
Final Decision: The court set aside the trial court's order and allowed the writ petition.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Prem Chandra Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Om Chandra Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2.
2. Controversy raised in the present writ petition is with regard to the scope of provisions contained in Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as the application preferred by the petitioner for impleadment has been rejected by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barabanki by means of order dated 25.07.2011, which order has been impugned in the present writ petition.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 2 had filed a suit against respondent no. 3 seeking a decree wherein the a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 28.04.2009 was filed by him. During the pendency of the said suit respondent no. 3 had transferred the property to the petitioner by means of 'hibanama' (gift deed) dated 10.08.2009, by means of registered instrument. After execution of gift deed the petitioner had moved an application for impleadment. The said application was opposed by the respondent no. 2, stating that no transfer made during pendency of the suit would be void in terms of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and consequently petitioner has not got any right to become a party in the present litigation.
4. The trial Court sustained the objections filed by respondent no. 2 and held that the petitioner claims impleadment on the basis of gift deed and the gift deed itself would be void in terms of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and consequently, there is no occasion for the petitioner to be impleaded as party on the strength of a void instrument and rejected the application for impleadment.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if for the moment it is assumed that gift deed would be hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, it cannot be denied that the gift deed was infact executed and the petitioner has sufficient interest to become party in the present suit and consequently as to whether the gift deed was void or not, could have been established only at the conclusion of the trial. Had the said disputed question translated into a issue framed by the trial Court and after examination of evidence adduced by the parties, the said issue could have been decided. It is submitted that the application for impleadment at the very outset could not have been rejected by recording a finding that the transaction was hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and such a procedure followed by the trial Court is clearly arbitrary and it would have been appropriate for the trial Court to allow the application for impleadment and subsequently after doing so appropriate issue could have been framed and adjudicated after following due process.
6. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court should not have recorded a finding at the very inception while considering the application for impleadment that the petitioner could not become party on the strength of void instrument.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the gift deed was executed only on 10.08.2009 i.e. during the pendency of the suit proceedings and consequently, there is no dispute regarding the said fact and in the light of the provisions contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the said instrument could be deemed to be void and the petitioner does not get any right over the disputed property and there is no infirmity in the order of trial Court.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The issue which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the petitioner has sufficient interest in the pending suit proceedings to be made party and also as to whether merely on account of the fact that gift deed was executed during the pendency of the proceedings, such an
The discretion of the court to make subsequent transferee a party and the subservient nature of transfer pendente lite to the rights eventually determined by the court in pending litigation.
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which renders any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit void. The co....
A transferee pendente lite is entitled to be impleaded in specific performance suits to protect their interests, validating the need for comprehensive adjudication of rights over the property.
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.
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
