CR No. 5618 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 5618 of 2011 Date of Decision: 15.11.2011 Smt. Sulekha and another ....Petitioners. Versus Mahabir and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiffs-petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 4.8.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by them under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) for impleading subsequent purchaser/transferee Sangeeta daughter of Mahabir Singh and Jeet Pal son of Sanwant Singh as defendants was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication as narrated in the petition are that the petitioners filed a petition under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the trial court on the ground that it is a legal obligation on the husband to maintain his wife as well as CR No. 5618 of 2011 -2- his children irrespective of his possession of any property whether joint or self-acquired. The interest of the wife in her husband's property arises out of her married status and it also prohibits alienation of properties of the husband for depriving the wife from the claim of maintenance. According to the petitioners, they were entitled to be maintained out of property owned by respondent No.1 under Section 39 of the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882 as well. It was pleaded that respondent No.1 was joint owner in possession of the land measuring 5 kanals 13 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Dawana, Tehsil and District Rewari. The said petition was filed on 10.6.2004 whereas the land in question had already been transferred in favour of Sangeet-respondent No.2 (minor daughter of respondent No.1). Respondent No.1 filed the written statement pleading that in pursuance of the registered release deed dated 24.7.2002, respondent No.2 became owner of the property who further vide gift deed dated 20.10.2006 gifted the same to respondent No.3 and in pursuance thereof mutation dated 13.7.2007 was also sanctioned in favour of respondent No.3 (real uncle of respondent No.2). According to respondent No.1, the property owned by respondent No.2 cannot be charged in the maintenance proceedings. Further, it was pleaded that respondent No.2 was competent to gift the suit property. The petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code for impleading subsequent transferee as party pleading that respondent No.1 had executed a registered release deed dated 24.7.2002 in favour of respondent No.2 qua the land measuring 24 kanals 9 marlas and in pursuance thereof mutation was also sanctioned CR No. 5618 of 2011 -3- on 14.6.2004. According to the petitioner, all this was done after coming to know about the filing of the divorce petition by petitioner No.1. Respondent No.1 filed the reply to the said application denying the averments made therein. The trial court vide order dated 4.8.2011 dismissed the said application holding that respondent No.3-Jeet Pal donee was not a necessary party in the case. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The trial court declined the application filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code observing that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for maintenance under the Act seeking maintenance from Mahabir (husband of petitioner No.1) on 10.6.2004 whereas the respondent No.1 had already transferred the property in the name of his minor daughter, Sangeeta on 24.7.2002 by registered release deed and in such a situation, impleading the respondents No.2 and 3 was not justified. The observations of the trial court declining the said application read thus:- “4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the facts of this case. It is a case of maintenance filed by the petitioner against her husband Sh. Mahabir Singh. This petition was filed on 10.6.2004, whereas the property in the name of Sangeeta minor daughter of respondent no.1 was transferred way back in the year 2002 i.e. on 24.7.2002, two years prior to the filing of this present petition. Smt. Sangeeta became the absolute owner CR No. 5618 of 2011 -4- of this property. It is claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant that being a subsequent transferee Sh. Jeetpal is liable to be impleaded as necessary party. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has referred various case laws which are as under:- 1. Gopal Singh vs. Raghir Singh Vol.CLXI PLR 145 (P&H) 2. Kartar Vs. Gordhan Dass Vol. CKXI PLR 249 (P&H) 5. I have perused the case laws referred by learned counsel for the applicant. These case laws referred are totally distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The case laws referred by the applicants relates to the property sold through an agreement to sell by the vendor. But in this case, the property was transferred by the father in favour of his daughter two years prior to filing of the present case. Sangeeta minor daughter of respondent no.1 had also gifted this property in favour of her uncle being the absolute owner of the property. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court Sh. Jeetpal donee is not a necessary party in this case. Hence, the present application is devoid of any merit, same is hereby dismissed.” 5. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the CR No. 5618 of 2011 -5- learned counsel for the petitioners in the aforesaid finding recorded by the trial court which may warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. November 15, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE