NEELAM YADAV Vs. SHREE DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dharmala Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for plaintiffsrespondent Nos. 1 & 2 and perused the record. This Misc. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dtd. 7/4/2022 passed by Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Etawah rejecting the Application No.162-Ka for impleadment in Original Suit No. 234 of 2009 and order dtd. 30/5/2022 passed by the District Judge, Etawah in Civil Revision no. 16 of 2022 by which the civil revision filed by the petitioners was rejected. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs-respondents had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell with respect to suit property on 28/5/2009. The suit was registered as Original Suit No. 234 of 2009. It is pleaded in the plaint that the defendant Nawab Singh is owner in possession of 0.67 dismal land of Khata no. 127, Bhumidhari no. 80-Kha area 0.9102 hectare situated in Village Manikpur Vishu, District Etawah. The defendant was agree to sell 0.48 dismal land of his share of 0.67 dismal on consideration of Rs.27.00 lakhs and had received Rs.7.00lakhs in advance and executed the agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff, which was registered on 7/10/2008. It was agreed between the parties that rest amount will be paid within seven months and defendant will execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. Inspite of notice, the defendant Nawab Singh was not ready to execute the sale deed and as such, the suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiffs.

(2.) During the pendency of suit, sole defendant Nawab Singh died and in his place, his wife and two sons were substituted as defendant Nos. 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3 and all the legal representatives were having 1/3rd share each in the said property. The defendant no. 1/3, son of Nawab Singh had executed a sale deed in favour of plaintiff no.1 on 11/12/2015 and defendant no.1/2 had executed sale deed on 3/10/2017 of his 1/3rd share of the property and the suit was remained pending for only 1/3rd share of the defendant No. 1/1 Smt. Parvati Devi who is wife of Nawab Singh.

(3.) The petitioners had purchased the share of defendant no. 1/1 Smt. Parvati Devi through registered sale deed on 27/4/2019 during the pendency of suit and they have filed an impleadment application. The impleadment application which is paper No. 162-Ka has been filed in the suit on the ground that the defendant no. 1/1 had sold her share to the applicants and now she is not interested to contest the suit and since they are bonafide purchasers of the share of defendant no. 1/1, they are necessary party to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs had filed detailed objection to the impleadment application stating therein that there was injunction order by the Court dtd. 14/3/2012 restraining the defendants from transferring the property in question. It is further stated in the objection that the sale deed which was executed in favour of applicants are without any prior permission of the Court. It is also pleaded that the applicants are belonging to the family of defendant Nawab Singh and they had full knowledge about the pendency of present suit and inspite of restrained order, the sale deed was executed by the defendant no. 1/1 on 27/4/2019. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs had not sought any relief against the applicants and as such, their impleadment application is liable to be rejected. The Court below, after considering the objection filed by plaintiffs, had rejected the impleadment application filed by present petitioners vide order dtd. 7/4/2022. The present petitioners had preferred a Civil Revision against the order dtd. 7/4/2022 which was registered as Civil Revision No. 16 of 2022 and the Civil Revision preferred by present petitioners was also dismissed by the revisional Court vide judgment and order dtd. 30/5/2022. Both the Courts below had recorded the finding that inspite of restrained order dtd. 14/3/2012, the sale deed was executed by the defendant no. 1/1 of her 1/3rd share in favour of applicants and the sale deed was executed without any prior permission of the Court.