Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:56:53

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

C.M.P. No.964 of 2025

(In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India)

Jaspal Singh …. Petitioner

-versus-

Smt. Trupti Pattnaik and others …. Opposite Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner : Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate

For O.P. No.1

Mr. S.K. Pattnaik, Advocate

For O.P. Nos.3 to 6

Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate

For O.P. Nos.2 & 7

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

27^th October 2025

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1, Mr. S.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 3 to 6 and Mr. S.K.

Mishra, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 2 & 7.

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:56:53

2. Present C.M.P. is directed against order dated 30.04.2025 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, 1^st Court, Cuttack in C.S. No.1080 of 2023, wherein the prayer of Opposite Party No.1 to be impleaded as a party as per Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. has been allowed.

3. Present Petitioner being the Plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit praying for partition against present Opposite Parties 2 to 7 as Defendants. The common ancestor of the suit property is the father of the Plaintiff and other Defendants. As per the contention of the intervenor-Petitioner (present Opposite Party No.1), the common ancestor made an agreement for sale of the suit property through Defendant No.4 as attorney holder and received part consideration amount from her. Thus, when she came to know about pendency of the suit for partition between the parties filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. praying to implead her as one of the Defendants in order to effectively adjudicate the claim in the suit.

4. The intervening purchaser having the agreement for sale in her favour cannot claim for right over the property. An agreement for sale does not create any right in favour of the intending purchaser in respect of right title of the property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:56:53 Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) Through Director v. State of Haryana and Another, (2012) 1 SCC 656, while explaining the scope of agreement for sale, have observed as follows:-

“16. Section 54 of the TP Act makes it clear that a contract of sale, that is, an agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. This Court in Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam, (1977) 3 SCC 247 observed:

“32. A contract of sale does not of itself create any interest in, or charge on, the property. This is expressly declared in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. (See Ram Baran Prasad v. Ram Mohit Hazra, AIR 1967 SC 744.) The fiduciary character of the personal obligation created by a contract for sale is recognized in Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and in Section 91 of the Trusts Act. The personal obligation created by a contract of sale is described in Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act as an obligation arising out of contract and annexed to the ownership of property, but not amounting to an interest or easement therein.

33. In India, the word ‘transfer’ is defined with reference to the word ‘convey’. … The word ‘convey’ in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act is used in the wider sense of conveying ownership.

* * * *

37. ….. that only on execution of conveyance, ownership passes from one party to another…..”

17. In Rambha Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra, (2004) 8 SCC 614 this Court held:

“10. Protection provided under Section 53-A of the Act to the proposed transferee is a shield only against the transferor. It disentitles the transferor from disturbing the possession of the proposed transferee who is put in possession in pursuance to such an agreement. It has nothing to do with the ownersh