Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW BENCH
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Mohd. Shakeel – Appellant
Versus
Munni Devi and Others – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 555 of 2026
Decided On : 13-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of trial court proceedings (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. contention against impleadment (Para 8 , 11) |
| 3. court's reasoning for allowing the impleadment (Para 9 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. legal framework on transfer of property pending suit (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. assessment of specific claim for impleadment (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. final judgment and dismissal of the petition (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Shri S. Mohd Kazim, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.48, Lucknow in Regular Suit No.973 of 2000 titled Mohd. Shakeel v. Munni Devi whereby an application filed by the third party- Babu Lal (the opposite party No.4 to the petition) has been allowed.
3. The petitioner had filed the aforesaid suit against Munni Devi, mother of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3- Ramesh Kumar and Naresh Kumar, for specific performance of contract. On 23.12.2000, the trial Court had passed an ex-parte order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from selling the property to any other person and from changing the nature of the property. Thereafter, the suit was decreed ex-parte on 30.05.2002.
4. The plaintiff filed Execution Case No.08 of 2002 for execution of the ex-parte decree dated 30.05.2002.
5. Prior to filing of the Execution Case, the defendant – judgment debtor Munni Devi had already executed a sale deed dated 26.03.2002 in respect of the property in question in favour of one Qadir Hussain and had handed-over physical possession of the property to the purchaser. The name of purchaser Qadir Hussain was mutated in the revenue records. Qadir Hussain executed a registered sale deed dated 15.02.2005 in respect of the property in question in favour of opposite party No.4 - Babu Lal and handed over possession of the property to the purchaser. The name of opposite party No.4- Babu Lal has been mutated in the revenue records.
6. The plaintiff – decree holder filed an application for impleadment of Qadir Hussain and Babu Lal in execution proceeding which application was allowed by means of an order dated 30.09.2013, and Qadir Hussain and Babu Lal were impleaded in the execution case. The opposite party no. 4 stated that prior to it, he had no knowledge of the execution proceedings.
7. The opposite party no. 4 filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 30.05.2002, which application has been allowed by means of an order dated 07.08.2023. Thereafter the opposite party no. 4 requested for his impleadment in the suit.
8. The petitioner – Shakeel Ahmad filed objections against the application inter alia stating that the trial Court had passed a temporary injunction order dated 23.12.2000 restraining the defendants from transferring the property. Munni Devi had sold away the property to Qadir Hussain and their Qadir Hussain had sold the property to the opposite party no. 4 in violation of the provision contained in Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act and the purchaser has no right to seek his impleadment. Regarding impleadment of the opposite party no. 4 in execution proceedings, the plaintiff stated that it was wrongly done by some other Counsel, whereas the newly engaged Counsel of the plaintiff was of a different view. The newly engaged Counsel had moved an application for deletion of the added defendants but the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. had been allowed. The plaintiff had challenged the order setting aside the ex-parte decree by filing Civil Revision No. 167 of 2023, which was pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Lucknow
9. The Trial Court allowed the impleadment application by means of the impugned order dated 13.03.2024 holding that the opposite party No.4 is a transferee pendente lite and he can seek his
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.
A subsequent transferee with a registered sale deed must be allowed to protect her interests in ongoing litigation, demonstrating both necessity and direct interest in the subject matter.
A transferee pendente lite is entitled to be impleaded in a suit to protect their interest, and the trial court erred in dismissing the application for impleadment.
Point of Law : Presence of the transferee pendent lite is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the suit and issues involved therein and the court below has exercised its discretion in....
The court ruled that transferees pendente lite are necessary parties in a partition suit for effective adjudication, subject to the outcome of the suit.
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 third party seeking impleadment must demonstrate a direct legal interest in the case, and the court retains discretion to allow or deny such applications based on the specifics of the case.
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
