DHULJI RAMAJI JAT Vs. VIJAYKUMAR MADANLALJI GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this second appeal under section 100, Civil Procedure code the appellants challenge the judgment and decree passed by the two courts below inter alia on the grounds that during the pendency of the suit, the respondent No. 1 had sold the property and, therefore, he had no existing right to continue with the suit and the sale deed was in fact security for loan, was sham and bogus and was not to be acted upon.

(2.) THE appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law :

(3.) THE plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed the suit against the present appellants inter alia pleading that the suit property was purchased by him from the appellant No. 2 on 11-4-1985 for consideration of Rs. 7,000/- and after some time i. e. 15-4-1985 the property was given back to the appellant no. 1 for cultivation as a servant. It was contended by the defendants that the defendants never sold the property but in fact it was loan transaction and the plaintiff obtained a sale deed in lieu of security for the loan. It was also contended by them that the possession of the property was never delivered to the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent No. l sold the property to Leeladhar and Purushotam both sons of Ramratan on 22-11-1982. He wanted to amend the pleadings by adding para 9a and para 9b in the plaint. He also wanted to join the said transferees as defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 4. In the said application he also submitted that if leeladhar and Purushotam want to join as plaintiffs, the plaintiff would not have no objection. The application dated 11-1-1984 was contested by the defendants. It was contended by them that the amendment was mala fide and as the plaintiff has already transferred his right, title and interest in favour of leeladhar and Purushotam, he cannot continue with the suit. Notice of the application was issued to the transferees. The transferees in their objections contended that the said transferees have already filed a suit for possession or in the alternative for refund of consideration, therefore, their Impleadment as party is not necessary.