Shivraj Singh and Another Vs.

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Feb 04, 2014

~6 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1124967

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1124967
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Feb 04, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shivraj Singh and Another

Excerpt

.....because, as a purchaser pendente lite, she would be bound by the decree against her vendor. there is some divergence of opinion regarding the question, whether a 25pendent elite purchaser is entitled, as a matter of right, to get impleaded in the suit, this court in (2005) 11 scc403 held that: “further pending the suit, the transferee is not entitled as of right to be made a party to the suit, though the court has a discretion to make him a party. but the transferee endent elite can be added as a proper party if his interest in the subject-matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral. a transferee 25endent elite to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendant is vitally interested in the litigation, where the transfer is of the entire interest of the defendant; the latter having no more interest in the property may not properly defend the suit. he may collude with the plaintiff. hence, though the plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a party, under order 22 rule 10 an alienee 25endent elite may be joined as party. as already noticed, the court has discretion in the matter which must be judicially exercised and an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interests. sandeep sethi 2014.02.07 17:17 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cr no.19 of 2013 -4- the court has held that a transferee 25endent elite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in- interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. he is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where his predecessor-in-interest is made a party to the litigation; he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case.”. the preponderance of opinion of this court is that a pendente lite purchaser's application for impleadment should normally be allowed or “considered liberally”.learned counsel for the respondent no.1, on the other hand, has opposed.....

Full Judgment

CR No.19 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (238) CR No.19 of 2013 Date of decision:04.02.2014 Shivraj Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus Sharanjit Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.B.S.Sra, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Prateek Mahajan, Advocate for Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.1.

**** SABINA, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 27.11.2012 (Annexure P-7) whereby application moved by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit.

Hence, they were liable to be impleaded as defendants.

Defendant Sardool Singh was an old man aged 95 years and was resident of Canada.

The said defendant was unable Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.19 of 2013 -2- to pursue the case.

Suit had been filed basing reliance on agreement to sell dated 06.01.1997 in the year 2008.

In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in A.

Nawab John and others versus V.N.Subramaniyam SC20123) RCR (Civil) 479 wherein it was held as under:- “This Court on more than one occasion held that when a pendente lite purchaser seeks to implead himself as a party - defendant to the suit, such application should be liberally considered.

This Court also held in Smt.

Saila Bala Dassi v.

Smt.

Nirmala Sundari Dassi and Another, AIR 1958 SC394 that, “justice requires”., a pendente lite purchaser “should be given an opportunity to protect his rights”.

It was a case, where the property in dispute had been morgaged by one of the respondents to another respondent.

The mortgagee filed a suit, obtained a decree and 'commenced proceedings for sale of the mortgaged property'.

The appellant Saila Bala, who purchased the property from the judgment-debtor subsequent to the decree sought to implead herself in the execution proceedings and resist the execution.

That application was opposed on various counts.

This Court opined that Saila Bala was entitled (under Section 146 of the C.P.C) Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.19 of 2013 -3- to be brought on record to defend her interest because, as a purchaser pendente lite, she would be bound by the decree against her vendor.

There is some divergence of opinion regarding the question, whether a 25pendent elite purchaser is entitled, as a matter of right, to get impleaded in the suit, this Court in (2005) 11 SCC403 held that: “Further pending the suit, the transferee is not entitled as of right to be made a party to the suit, though the court has a discretion to make him a party.

But the transferee endent elite can be added as a proper party if his interest in the subject-matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral.

A transferee 25endent elite to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendant is vitally interested in the litigation, where the transfer is of the entire interest of the defendant; the latter having no more interest in the property may not properly defend the suit.

He may collude with the plaintiff.

Hence, though the plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a party, under Order 22 Rule 10 an alienee 25endent elite may be joined as party.

As already noticed, the court has discretion in the matter which must be judicially exercised and an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interests.

Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.19 of 2013 -4- The court has held that a transferee 25endent elite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in- interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest.

He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where his predecessor-in-interest is made a party to the litigation; he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case.”

The preponderance of opinion of this Court is that a pendente lite purchaser's application for impleadment should normally be allowed or “considered liberally”.Learned counsel for the respondent No.1, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that petitioners could be allowed to be impleaded as party.

However, they were bound by the pleadings already taken by the original defendant and could contest the same from the stage the original defendant had stopped defending the suit.

In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Jagdish Chander and another versus Om Piari and others 2008(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 56, Gurmukh Singh and others versus Janmeja Singh and others 2011(3) PLR670and Pipal Singh versus Anokh Singh and others 2012 (2) PLR141 In the present case, respondent No.1 has filed suit for joint possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 06.01.1997 executed by respondent No.2-Sardool Singh in Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.19 of 2013 -5- their favour.

Case of the petitioners is that the suit was filed in April, 2008.

The case of the petitioners was that they had purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit vide sale deeds dated 22.07.2009 and 30.11.2009.

So far as defendant Sardool Singh is concerned, he is resident of Canada.

Apparently, he cannot pursue the case effectively and may not have any interest left in the suit property as it has been already sold by him.

Petitioners who have purchased the property in question during the pendency of the suit are entitled to protect their interest by becoming party to the suit.

In view of the decision given by the Apex Court in A.

Nawab John's case (supra).the application moved by the petitioners for being impleaded as party was liable to be allowed.

So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents are concerned, the same fail to advance the case of the respondent No.1 as they are based on different facts.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

Impugned order dated 27.11.2012 is set aside.

Consequently, application moved by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed.

(SABINA) JUDGE February 04, 2014.

sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties Shivraj Singh and Another vs Same Subject Land Acquisition