http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 5664 of 2006

PETITIONER:

Sanjay Verma

RESPONDENT:

Manik Roy and Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/12/2006

BENCH:

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.12513 of 2006)

Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a

learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court allowing

application filed by the respondents in terms of Order I Rule

10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the ’CPC’).

The applicants are transferees of the property in dispute

during the pendency of the suit.

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Appellant filed a suit for specific performance of contract

against one Rajeshwari Devi, respondent No.3. The suit is

numbered as Title Suit No. 88 of 1991. The prayer in the suit

was for a decree against the defendant for specific

performance of agreements dated 25.12.1986 and 27.12.1990

by directing to the defendant No.1 to execute registered sale

deeds. Further declaration was sought for to the effect that

said defendant No.1 had no right to execute four sale deeds in

favour of defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5. Permanent injunction was

also sought for restraining the defendants from interfering in

any manner in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

During the pendency of the suit an application in terms

of Order XXXIX Rules 1and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was

filed on behalf of appellant for temporary injunction. Learned

Subordinate Judge-I, Dhanbad granted temporary injunction

in favour of the appellant. After the order of injunction was

passed, Smt. Vinaya Devi, Defendant (respondent No.4 herein)

transferred a portion of suit land in favour of one Mihir Kumar

Chakraborty by Sale Deed dated 16.3.1993. Defendant Sanjay

Prasad also transferred a portion of suit land in favour of one

Shyam Kumar Datta by registered Sale Deed dated 13.7.1993.

On 3.12.1997 said Shyam Kumar Datta further transferred a

portion of the suit land in favour of respondent No.1-Manik

Roy and Mihir Kumar Chakraborty vide registered sale deed

dated 3.12.1997. The respondents filed an application in

terms of Order I, Rule 10(2) CPC on 20.8.2005 for

impleadment to contest the suit and to permit them to file

written statement. Learned Subordinate Judge held that both

Smt. Ahilya Jha and Manik Roy had admittedly purchased the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 4

suit property after 1991 without obtaining leave of the court

and thus the transfer is pendente lite and is clearly hit by

Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short the

’TP Act’). It was further observed that Manik Roy had

purchased the property on 3.12.1997. Ahilaya Jha applicant

had purchased the portion of the suit property on 9.12.2000.

The trial Court, therefore, rejected the prayer for impleadment.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2006

respondents Manik Roy and Ahilaya Jha filed a writ petition

before the High Court which allowed the writ petition holding

that the respondents’ vendors were not parties to the suit and

there was nobody to represent and safeguard their interest

and therefore they are required to be added as parties in the

suit for the ends of justice.

The High Court also noted that the trial Court had not

considered the effect of the fact that the respondents’ vendors

are not parties to the suit and there was no representation of

the writ petitioners and their vendors in the suit.

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that the effect of Section 52 of the T.P. Act

has been completely lost sight of.

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand

submitted that plaintiff Sanjay is none other than the son of

late M.M. Sharma, who was an advocate who had appeared for

defendant Rajeshwari Devi in a suit for specific performance

which was decreed in f