Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Shri Penta Buildcon Pvt.Ltd. v. Laltobai and others
Writ Petition No.8265 of 2015 (Gwalior) : against the order dated 15.10.2015, passed by Xth Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.84-A/2014; Decided on 19.2.2016.
Held : It can be held that doctrine of lis pendens is necessitated for administration of justice. The decision of the Court in a suit shall be binding not only on the litigant parties, but on those who derive title pendente lite. Mere assignment, devolution or interest in a property during pendency would not mean that such transfer is void, but it is subservient to the right of parties to the litigation which may be determined by the Court and as such transfer made in favour of subsequent purchaser is subject to riders and orders passed by the Court, meaning thereby, that if any subsequent purchaser or a person who has purchased form the defendant applies to the Court, he cannot be denied to join as a party to the proceeding merely under the presumption that if such an application is allowed, then aspirant purchasers, if any, may also have to be permitted to join the proceedings or the suit. The analogy, as taken by the trial Court, refusing leave to join the petitioner as party to proceeding, is not in conformity to the substantivce provisions, as well as, the procedure to be applied in case of assignment or devolution of right before final order of decree is passed in a suit. (2013)5 SCC 397 and AIR 2007 SC 1332 followed. (1996)5 SCC 539 and (2001)6 SCC 534 dissented from. (2002)5 SCC 647 referred to. [Paras 8 & 9
(2) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S.52 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.22 R.10 and S.146 -- suit for declaration of title and injunction -- during pendency of suit -- twice transfer of property -- subsequent purchaser applied under Order 22 rule 10 for impleading him -- application cannot be rejected on such presumptions -- that if application is allowed -- then aspirant purchasers also have to be permitted -- doctrine of lis pendens is necessitated for administration of justice -- application allowed. [Paras 8 & 9
¼1½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-22 fu-10 rFkk /kkjk 146 && laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 && /kkjk 52 && gd~ dh ?kks"k.kk ,oa LFkk;h O;kns'k ds fy, okn & okn ds yafcr jgrs && laifÙk dk varj.k && Øsrk }kjk laifÙk dk vU; vaarj.k fd;k x;k && i'pkr~orhZ Øsrk us mls i{kdkj cuk, tkus ds fy, vkns'k 22 fu;e 10 ds v/khu vkosnu fd;k && vkosnu ,slh mi/kkj.kkvksa ij [kkfjt ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd && ;fn vkosnu eatwj fd;k tkrk gS && rc vkdka{kh Øsrkvksa dks Hkh vuqKkr fd;k tkuk gksxk && U;k; iz'kklu ds fy, fopkjk/khu okn ds fl}kar dh vis{kk djuk gksrh gS && vkosnu eatwj fd;k x;kA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tk ldrk gS fd U;k; iz'kklu ds fy, fopkjk/khu okn ds fl}kar dh vis{kk djuk gksrh gSA okn esa U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; u dsoy eqdnesackt i{kdkjksa ij vkc}dj gksxk] cfYd mu ij Hkh vkc}dj gksxk ftUgksaus fopkjk/khu okn esa gd~ izkIr fd;k gSA dsoy yafcr jgus ds nkSjku laifÙk dk gLrkarj.k] U;kxeu ;k fgr ls ;g vfHkizsr ugha gksxk fd ,slk varj.k 'kwU; gS] fdarq ;g eqdnesackt i{kdkjksa ds vf/kdkj ds fy, lgk;d gksxk tks U;k;ky; }kjk voèkkfjr fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj bl izdkj i'pkr~orhZ Øsrk ds i{k esa fd;k x;k varj.k vuqo`f} vkSj U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds v/;/khu gS] ftldk vFkZ gS fd ;fn i'pkr~orhZ Øsrk ;k O;fDr ftlus izfroknh ls Ø; fd;k gS vkSj U;k;ky; dks vkosnu djrk gS] mls dsoy ,slh mi/kkj.kkvksa ds v/khu dk;Zokgh esa i{kdkj ds :i esa tksM+us ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd ;fn ,slk vkosnu eatwj fd;k tkrk gS] rc vkdka{kh Øsrkx.k] ;fn dksbZ gks] dks Hkh dk;Zokfg;ksa ;k okn esa tksM+uk vuqKkr fd;k tkuk gksxkA lkE;kuqeku] tSlk fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk viuk;k x;k gS] ;kph dks dk;Zokgh esa i{kdkj ds :i esa tksM+us dh vuqefr ls bUdkj djuk] lkjHkwr mica/kksa dh vuq:irk esa ugha gS] lkFk&lkFk vf/kdkj ds gLrkarj.k ;k U;kxeu dh fLFkfr esa okn esa vafre vkns'k ;k fMØh ikfjr djus ds iwoZ izfØ;k ykxw djuk gksrh gSA ¼2013½ 5 ,l lh lh 397 rFkk , vkb vkj 2007 ,l lh 1332 vuqlfjrA ¼1996½ 5 ,l lh lh 539 rFkk ¼2001½ 6 ,l lh lh 534 ls folEerA ¼2002½ 5 ,l lh lh 647 fufnZ"VA ¼2½ laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 && /kkjk 52 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-22 fu-10 rFkk /kkjk 146 && gd dh ?kks"k.kk ,oa LFkk;h O;kns'k ds fy, okn && okn ds yafcr jgus ds nkSjku && laifÙk dk nks ckj varj.k && i'pkr~orhZ Øsrk us mls i{kdkj cuk, tkus ds fy, vkns'k 22 fu;e 10 ds v/khu vkosnu fd;k && vkosnu ,slh mièkkj.kkvksa ij [kkfjt ugha fd;k tk ldrk && fd ;fn vkosnu eatwj fd;k tkrk gS && rc vkdka{kh Øsrkvksa dks Hkh vuqKkr fd;k tkuk gksxk && U;k; iz'kklu ds fy, fopkjk/khu okn ds fl}kar dh vis{kk djuk gksrh gS && vkosnu eatwj fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 9½
1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 15.10.2015 passed by Xth ADJ, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.84-A/2014 rejecting his application under Order 22 rule 10, CPC, to implead him as defendant being purchaser during pendency of suit filed by respondent No.1.
2. On perusal of the order impugned, it reveals that the trial Court relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Verma v. Manik Roy [AIR 2007 SC 1332], has observed that in view of provision contained in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short "the Act") and by virtue of doctrine of lis pendens, the applicants are bound by the final judgment in the suit. It has also been observed that the person, who has applied to the Court, cannot seek leave of the Court merely on the ground that his rights may not be duly represented in the proceedings. It has also been observed that if the prayer for joining the proposed parties is accepted, then it would lead to perpetuity of such further applicants who may purchase property during pendency of the suit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this is a case wherein suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction has been filed by respondent No.1 against respondents No.2 to 5 and on the basis of agreement to sell executed in her favour receiving entire amount of consideration by respondent No.2 and delivered the possession of suit land. The name of respondent No.1 was also recorded in the revenue papers. During pendency of the suit, the disputed property was transferred by respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) in the name of Dinesh Kumar Arya by registered sale-deed dated 23.2.2013, who in turn, alienated the same to petitioner-applicant vide registered sale-deed dated 23.2.2013. However, he has submitted an application inter alia contending that property in question has been purchased by him during the pendency of the suit, therefore, having assignment of the property in question, he may be joined as party to the proceedings extending leave in his favour, otherwise his rights shall be affected.
Learned counsel referring to the provisions of section 52 of the Act fairly contended that by lis pendens transfer the judgment and decree passed in the suit shall bind not only on the parties in a suit but also on those who purchase the same pendente lite. Thus, by purchasing the suit land right accrues to him deserves adjudication subservient to the rights of litigants in the suit, therefore, application under Order 22 rule 10, CPC may be allowed. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on judgment of the apex Court in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors (P) Ltd. [(2013)5 SCC 397]. It is also urged by him that rejection of application by the trial Court observing that allowing of the application would give a right to the purchasers who may further purchase the property during pendency of litigation may not be a ground to refuse leave as per the language of under Order 22 rule 10, CPC. However, prayed invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugned order passed by the trial Court may be set aside allowing the application filed by the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, Shri Yogi and Shri Lalit Kumar, counsel representing respondent No.1 plaintiff (contesting party) have contended that suit is based on agreement to sell after passing the entire consideration amount and on having possession seeking declaration of title, and also on the basis of adverse possession because her name had already been recorded in the revenue records and continues as such since last 12 years. During the pendency of suit, the original defendant No.1 (respondent No.2) sold the property to one Dinesh Arya who had not applied to join as party to the proceedings. However, after the purchase by the petitioner-applicant, who claims title through Di
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
