SAVITRI DEVI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellant has filed a civil suit bearing No. 1586/92 in the Court of Munsif, Gorakhpur against her four sons for a decree for maintenance and for creation of a charge over the ancestral property of the family. The suit was filed on 14-8-92 and was fixed for hearing on 31-8-92. She applied for an interim order of injunction restraining her sons from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit. But on 18-8-92, a Vakalat was filed on behalf of the defendants and 4th defendant also filed an affidavit in the Court purporting to be on behalf of the defendants. The counsel appearing for the parties expressed their consent before the Court that during the pendency of the case the parties could be directed not to sell the suit property to any third person. In the light of the consent of the counsel, the Court passed an order on that date directing the parties not to transfer the disputed property described in the plaint in favour of any other person till the final disposal of the suit.

(3.) On 19-8-1992 the first defendant sold his 1/4th share in one of the lands to the third respondent and 1/4th share in another land to the 4th respondent. On 27-8-92 he sold 1/4th share in yet another land to the 5th respondent. All the three sales were by registered sale deeds. On 1-1-93 respondents 3 to 5 filed an application before the trial Court under Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151, C.P.C. for impleading them as parties to the suit. In the application they had stated that the first defendant had received sale consideration before executing the sale deeds and handed over possession of the subject-matter of the sale deeds to them. It was also alleged that the plaintiff and the defendants had colluded together in order to cause loss to them. That application was opposed by the appellant. In the statement of objections, it was stated that the sales were in breach, contempt and disregard of the order of injunction passed by the Court and the transferees under such sales got no title to the property in order to get impleaded as parties to the suit.