C.R. No. 5456 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5456 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: January 12, 2009 Smt. Geeta Tyagi .. Petitioner v. Vidhaya Devi (deceased) through LRs and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. J. S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. R. C. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 4. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned court below on 30.8.2006, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as defendant in the suit was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that Vidhaya Devi wife of Het Ram filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Shanti Devi and Sunita Devi, widow and daughter respectively of Ram Richhpal son of Bhoja. It was claimed that Ram Richhpal had sold 640/1966 share amounting to 32 kanals of land to Vidhaya Devi vide registered sale deed dated 28.11.1984 for a sale consideration of Rs. 84,000/-. As Ram Richhpal expired on or about 25.12.1984, the mutation could not be entered in the name of Vidhaya Devi and mutation of succession was sanctioned in favour of his legal heirs, namely, widow and daughter on 31.12.1996 without notice to Vidhaya Devi. The suit was initially dismissed on 26.2.2001 by the trial court. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, Vidhaya Devi filed appeal where even Khillar Singh son of Lickhi Ram filed an application for being impleaded as one of the defendants. It was for the reason that vide registered sale deeds dated 14.8.2000 and 16.8.2000, 32 kanals of land had been sold by Shanti Devi and Sunita Devi, legal representatives of Ram Richhpal to him. The learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Gurgaon, vide judgment C.R. No. 5456 of 2006 [2] dated 2.6.2003 allowed the application filed by Khillar Singh for being impleaded as defendant in the suit and also the appeal filed by Vidhaya Devi setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 26.2.2001 and the matter was remitted back to the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2001 before the learned Additional District Judge, mutation of the property purchased by Khillar Singh was sanctioned in his favour. After the matter was remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration, Khillar Singh sold 24 kanals and 14 marlas of land to Shiv Kumar vide registered sale deed dated 30.5.2005, who further sold it to the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 20.1.2006. It is how the petitioner is claiming herself to be a person interested in the suit property and praying for being impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit to protect her interest. The application having been rejected by the learned court below, the present revision petition has been filed before this Court. In view of the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for consideration. She is proper and necessary party in the pending litigation as part of the property has been sold to her for a consideration. Khillar Singh will not protect the interest in the suit qua the entire land as he now owns only 7 kanals and 6 marlas of land and rest of the land has already been sold by him. In case, the petitioner is not permitted to be impleaded as defendant in the suit, she will suffer irreparable loss. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the claim made by the petitioner in the present case is totally misconceived. In fact, the sale of property in the present case during the pendency of litigation was just to frustrate the pending litigation. In fact, the property was transferred in quick succession during the pendency of the suit in spite of there being interim injunction. The petitioner only steps into the shoes of Khillar Singh who is the vendee from Shanti Devi and Sunita Devi, legal representatives of Ram Richhpal. It is the title derived by him which will determine the fate of transfer of the property by him to Shiv Kumar and consequently to the petitioner. The petitioner does not have any independent right as such to protect. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly comes in the way. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The admitted facts on record are that the suit was filed by Vidhaya Devi claiming her to be the owner of the property to the extent of 32 kanals, as was sold to her by Ram Richhpal, though the suit was dismissed initially on 26.2.2001. However, in appeal filed against the judgment and decree, C.R. No. 5456 of 2006 [3] the same was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the trial court. In addition to this, even the application filed by one Khillar Singh, to whom Shanti Devi and Sunita Devi, legal representatives of Ram Richhpal had sold 32 kanals of land vide registered sale deed dated 14.8.2000 and 16.8.2000, was also allowed. During the pendency of the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge against the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2001 and also the application by Khillar Singh for impleading him as one of the defendants, he got the mutation of the property sanctioned in his name on 13.11.2001. During the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court, after the remand thereof by the learned Additional District Judge after setting the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2001 and also impleading Khillar Singh as one of the defendants, Khillar Singh vide registered sale deed dated 30.5.2005 transferred 24 kanals 14 marlas of land in favour of Shiv Kumar who further transferred the same to the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 20.1.2006. The learned court below in the impugned order has noticed an undisputed fact that the parties to the suit were restrained from alienating the suit property, meaning thereby the sale deeds which were registered in favour of Shiv Kumar and the petitioner, were in violation of the Court's order. The transactions having taken place during the pendency of the litigation, the petitioner herein cannot claim better title, than what Khillar Singh or Shiv Kumar had. Khillar Singh is already a party in the suit which is being defended by him. The provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act are certainly applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case because of the transactions having taken place during the pendency of the suit and in utter violation of the interim stay of alienation of property by the court. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find that any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as defendant in the suit. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge January 12, 2009 mk