PANNALA RENUKA Vs. KAVALI VENKATIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondents 4 to 6 herein (hereafter called, the plaintiffs) filed suit being O.S. No. 95 of 1999 against Respondents 7 and 8 (hereafter called, the defendants). The suit was filed on the file of the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar for declaration of title and delivery of possession of land admeasuring Acs. 0.36 guntas in survey No. 241 and Acs. 7.19 guntas in Survey No. 248 situated at Thummalur Village of Maheshwaram Mandal in Ranga Reddy District (the suit schedule property). The plaintiffs alleged that they are absolute owners and possessors of suit schedule property, that the defendants erected fencing in the property claiming it to be their own and that the defendants are trying to interfere with the property of the plaintiffs. The suit was coming up for trial. In 2004, the plaintiffs filed another suit being .S. No. 1073 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar against 9th respondent herein and ten (10) others including the second petitioner herein. This suit was filed for declaration of title, delivery of possession and permanent injunction and damages in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.1.27 guntas and Acs.15.11 guntas situated in survey No. 248 of Thummalur Village. In the said suit, they also referred to O.S. No. 95 of 1999. At that stage, the petitioners herein, who are the wife and husband, filed I.A. No. 938 of 2005 in O.S. No. 95 of 1999 under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) praying the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, to impleaded them as defendants 4 and 5. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs. The trial Court, by order dated 10 -8 -2005, dismissed I.A. No. 938 of 2005 placing reliance on two decisions of this Court in Ramesh Chawla v. N. Srihari and others, 2005 (3) ALD 4 : 2005 AIHC 2303 and Kuna Ramulu v. Kuna Annapurnamma and others. Feeling aggrieved by this, the present civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Khemchand S. Choudhari v. Vishnu H. Patil, (1983) 1 SCC 18 : AIR 1983 SC 124, Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal and Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon, (2005) 11 SCC 403 : AIR 2005 SC 2209, in support of the submission that being the transferees of interest of the defendants, they are proper and necessary parties and, therefore, notwithstanding Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, T. P. Act, for brevity, they can be impleaded under Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC. He also points out that when this Court decided Ramesh Chawla (supra), the decisions of the Supreme Court in Khemchand S. Choudhari (supra) and Raj Kumar (supra) were not brought to the notice of this Court and, therefore, the petitioners can be impleaded as party defendants. Opposing the C.R.P., learned Counsel for the plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 6) submits that as the petitioners purchased the property during the pendency of O.S. No. 95 of 1999 without obtaining leave of the Court, whether or not there is an order of the Civil Court prohibiting the sale, their purchase is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and, therefore, they cannot be brought on record as defendants.

(3.) THE law on this aspect is very clear that unless it is permitted by the Court, during the pendency of any suit or proceeding, the property cannot be transferred by any part to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any party under the decree or order, which may be passed. The prohibition commences from the date of presentation of the plaint or institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction and shall continue until the suit or proceeding is disposed of by final decree or order in absolute terms; the exception being the Court can permit such transfer on such terms as may be imposed.