JAGMAIL SINGH Vs. AMARJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.8.1997 of the trial Court whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 Of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the petitioner- applicant for being impleaded as a party to the suit has been dismissed.

(2.) Amarjeet Kaur and Sarjeet Kaur respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit for joint possession of the land detailed in the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved the aforesaid application for impleading him as a party. It was stated that the applicant had purchased some land out of the suit land including share in the motor and electricity connection etc. for consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Sharnajit Kaur, General Attorney of defendants Nos. 1 to 3. On the strength of registered sale deed dated 16.1.1995, mutation No. 7610 was also sanctioned. The applicant was not aware of the litigation pending between the plaintiffs and the defendants. He purchased the land as a bona fide purchaser believing that the defendants were the absolute owners of the land who had inherited the estate of deceased Bhagan Kaur widow of Inder Singh. It was also stated that the applicant is in peaceful possession of the land purchased by him out of the suit land and, therefore, he is necessary party to the suit.

(3.) The application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing a reply. It was stated that the applicant had no locus standi to file the application and the same was not maintainable and was even time barred. It was further stated that the petitioner had stepped into the shoes of the vendor during the pendency of the litigation pending between the parties to the suit and he had full knowledge of litigation as also of the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs. The mutation was got sanctioned at the back of the plaintiffs when the warrants of possession were issued by the Court in compliance of the decree passed. The applicant was well aware of this litigation and even then he purchased the property, with ulterior motive to defeat the legal rights of the plaintiffs.