Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Major P.T. Choudary vs Mohammed Abdul Basheer Khan And Ors. on 9 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(2)ALD675, 2007(4)ALT136, AIR 2007 (NOC) 1218 (A. P.)
Author: Bilal Nazki
Bench: Bilal Nazki
ORDER Bilal Nazki, J.
1. In a suit for permanent injunction, an application being I.A. No. 297 of 2006 was filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Order 22 Rule 10 and under Section 151 of CPC on behalf of third parties to implead them as plaintiff Nos. 3 to 6 in the suit. It was contended by them that they purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed on 15-12-2005 and took its possession on the same day. The original plaintiffs had filed the suit against the defendants for injunction restraining them from interfering, disturbing and encroaching upon the suit schedule property and an ad interim injunction had been granted in their favour in I.A. No. 392 of 2005 on 6-7-2005. They contended that since they have come into the shoes^ of plaintiffs by virtue of a sale deed, therefore, they were necessary parties and should be added as plaintiffs. The defendants! contended that the petition was not maintainable as the remedy of perpetual injunction was in persona and it was limited to the original plaintiffs and subsequent purchasers could not be impleaded as parties to the suit. The trial Court allowed the petition. Hence the revision by original defendants.
2. The only question which needs consideration is whether a subsequent purchaser of a suit property in a suit for injunction can be added as a plaintiff. The petitioners have relied on a judgment of this Court reported in Ramesh Chawla v. N. Srihari and Ors. . In this judgment, the learned Single Judge relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh 1996 (7) Supreme 210 : 1996 (6) SCC 50. In similar circumstances, when the defendants had dealt with the property in a pending suit, the Supreme Court held on the basis of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short "the Act"), It would, therefore, be clear that the defendants in the suit were prohibited by operation of Section 52 to deal with the property and could not transfer or otherwise dealt with it in any way affecting the rights of the appellant except with the order or authority of the Court. Admittedly, the authority or order of the Court had not been obtained for alienation of those properties. Therefore, the alienation obviously would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens by operation of Section 52. Under these circumstances, the respondents cannot be considered to be either necessary or proper parties to the suit.
3. The judgment is from the Supreme Court and this Court is bound to follow the same. But it may be pointed out that whedier a transaction was hit by Section 52 of the Act or not cannot be decided in an application for impleadment. The proper course appears to be that after impleadment the question of application of Section 52 of the Act could be decided in the trial. But since there is a direct judgment of the Supreme Court, this Court has no option, but to follow the judgment and reverse the order of the trial Court.
4. The revision petitions are allowed. The third parties, if feel aggrieved, can file a separate suit and this order will not come in their way provided they have a cause of action. Even the findings on Section 52 of the Act are the findings only restricted to the disposal of this revision and it will be open to the Court to decide, if any separate suit is filed, as to whether Section 52 of the Act would operate in the facts and circumstances of the case or not. No costs.