IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2025 FIRST APPEAL No. 32 of 2008 RATTI Versus NIHAL SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Pratip Visoriya - Advocate and Shri Devendra Choubey -

Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Prakash Chandra Chandil - Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4.

ORDER Heard through video conferencing.

2. Heard on I.A. No.4550/2025, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment of the subsequent purchaser.

3. It is submitted by Shri Devendra Chaubey that subsequent purchaser Anand Sharma has purchased the property in dispute, therefore, he has become a necessary party.

4. Considered the submissions made by Shri Devendra Chaubey.

5. Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 reads as under:-

"52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto. —During the [pendency] in any Court having authority [within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir] or established beyond such limits] by [the Central Government, of [any] suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immoveable Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose."

6. Thus, it is clear that the sale deed executed during the pendency of the suit by itself may not be an invalid sale deed, but the subsequent purchaser shall be bound by the decree, which may be ultimately passed in the civil suit.

7. Under these circumstances, when the appellant is being represented by his counsel and in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the subsequent purchaser would be bound by the decree, which can be passed in the present appeal, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for impleadment of the subsequent purchaser.

8. This case is also listed for final hearing.

9. Accordingly, the counsel for the parties are heard finally.

10. This first appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23/11/2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Datia to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Datia in Civil Suit No.13-A/2007, by which suit filed by the respondents for specific performance of contract has been decreed and appellant/defendant has been directed to execute the sale deed after receiving the remaining amount of Rs.53,000/-. It was further decreed by the Trial Court that in case the sale deed is not executed within a period of 15 days, then the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the sale deed executed through the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK Court. It has also been held that the registration expenses shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the defendant has also been directed to immediately vacate the suit premises and hand over the vacant possession of the property in dispute to the plaintiffs.

11. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, it is submitted by counsel for the appellant that according to the plaintiffs, an agreement to sell was executed on 26/06/2001, and according to the said agreement, the last date for execution of sale deed was 26/12/2002. The plaintiffs sent a written notice on 20/12/2002 (Ex. P-2) for execution of the sale deed, which was duly replied to by the defendant by his reply dated 28/12/2002, and in the said reply, the defendant denied his thumb impression on the agreement to sell. Thereafter, on 21/09/2005, another notice was sent and a civil suit was filed on 15/12/2005. It is submitted that although no issue with regard to the question of limitation has been framed, but in view of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, it was obligatory on the part of the Court to verify as to whethe