Unregistered agreements do not create any right in favor of the parties and may not be admissible in evidence.

ORDER : – Heard on I. A. No. 8486/2021, 8932/2021, I. A. No. 8487/2021 and I. A. No. 8931/2021.

I. A. No. 8486/2021 and I. A. No. 8932/2021 have been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code by the applicants 1- A and A Real Estate Pvt. Ltd; and 2-Mohammed Atique, as well as Priya Goods Pvt. Ltd., respectively in First Appeal No. 296/2000.

I. A. No. 8487/2021 and I. A. No. 8931/2021 have been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code by the applicants 1- A and A Real Estate Pvt. Ltd; and 2-Mohammed Atique as well as Priya Goods Pvt. Ltd., respectively in First Appeal No. 437/2000.

The aforesaid applications were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 64-A/99 for partition and separate possession of their shares in the properties of late Nawab Haji Mohammad Hamidullaha Khan Bahadur. The properties include lands bearing khasra number 47 area 8.57 acres, khasra number 48 area 25.20 acres, khasra number 50 area 9.65 acres and khasra number 51 area 15.10 acres. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14-2-2000 dismissed the aforesaid suit.

2. Mr. Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel while pressing this application has raised manifold contentions, however, in essence, it is mainly contended that to avoid multiplicity of litigation, it is imperative that the applicants be impleaded. It is contended that the applicants were not the contesting parties in the suit and during pendency of the present appeal, the applicants entered into agreements with the legal representatives of the contesting party for transferring their respective interest and shares in the suit property and thereby created interest in the suit property through which share has been purchased after payment of full consideration. However, the sale deed is to be executed after title issue is decided. It is further contended that any order which may be passed in this matter would seriously affect the rights of the applicants, hence, they are to be impleaded.

3. It is contended that the applicant-Priya Goods Pvt. Ltd. in I. A. No. 8932/2021 entered into agreement on 5-12-2011 with Mohd. Nasir Mirza and Smt. Faiza who are legal heirs of the appellant-Nawabzadi Qamar Taj Rabiya Sultan. Hence, they claimed that by the aforesaid agreement, they acquired the rights of respective shares and interest of the above appellants in the suit property, namely, “Ahmedabad Palace”. The applicants also contended that the parties to the suit are trying to alienate the properties in question. Therefore, the applicants are proper and necessary party to the lis. The appellants have no objection with regard to interlocutory applications filed by the applicants and dominus litis has no applicability in the case at hand. Mr. Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel has referred to the order dated 2-3-2020 and submitted that the application for impleadment on similar grounds was allowed. It is further contended that there are agreements in favour of the applicants and some advance money has already been paid.

4. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on several decisions in support of his contentions. Heavy reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Smt. Saila Bala Dassi vs. Smt. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and another, AIR 1958 SC 394 wherein it has been held as follows :

“9.…….It is obvious that there are several substantial questions arising for determination in which the appellant as purchaser of the properties is vitally interested and indeed is the only person interested. As a purchaser pendente lite, she will be bound by the proceedings taken by the first respondent in execution of her decree, and justice requires that she should be given an opportunity to protect her rights.”

5. Combatting the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decision in the case of