Telangana High Court

Bandari Laxmaiah Laxmaiah vs Chelloju Ramanachari on 7 July, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

         CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1379 OF 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri M.Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Ramchander Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel appearing for

respondents.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the

order dated 28.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.1098 of 2024 in O.S.No.78

of 2020 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judicial

Magistrate of First Class at Karimnagar.

3. The petitioner herein/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit against

the respondents 2 to 4 herein/defendants 1 to 3/D.1 to D.3 to declare

him as title holder, owners and possessor of the suit schedule

agricultural land (for short, 'the subject property') and for perpetual

injunction restraining D.1 to D.3 from interfering with the suit

schedule property; to declare the sale certificate, dated 06.09.2005 as

not a title deed of D.1; to declare the registered sale deed bearing

document No. 1096 of 2010 dated 23.04.2010 executed by D.1 in

favour of D.2 as null and void, inoperative and not binding on the

plaintiff; to declare the registered sale deed Doc.No.5387 of 2010

dated 03.08.2019 executed by D.2 in favour of D.3 as null and void,

inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff; and to direct the revenue

authorities to rectify the mutation in respect of the schedule

agricultural land as shown in the schedule of property be declared as

null and void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff.

4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit contending that

he is the owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring

Ac.1.20 guntas comprised in Sy.No.2/1 situated at Katnapalli Village,

Choppadandi Mandal, Karimnagar District (for short, 'the suit

schedule property'). The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property

from Bandari Mallaiah under registered sale deed bearing

Doc.No.1551 of 1987 dated 22.08.1987 and his name was also

mutated in the revenue records. Since then, the plaintiff is in

possession of the suit schedule property and cultivating the said land.

One Gannu Sanjeeva Reddy, filed a suit vide O.S.No.116 of 2001

before Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, for recovery of

Rs.80,000/- with interest against the plaintiff herein. The said suit was

decreed on 10.01.2003 and he has filed E.P.No.106 of 2003 for

execution of the said judgment and decree. The said E.P. was allowed,

public auction was conducted on 22.08.2005 and D.1 stood as

successful bidder and deposited the amount. The sale was duly

confirmed. After getting the sale certificate dated 06-09-2005, D.1

failed to obtain possession of the suit schedule property. As such the

plaintiff is in continuous possession of the suit schedule property

without any interference to the knowledge of D.1.

5. In pahani patrika for fasli 2019, the plaintiff found the name

of D.2 as pattadar and possessor. D.1 in collusion with D.2 to deprive

the right of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, created the

mutation proceedings with File No.B/633/2019, dated 03.12.2019

issued by the Tahsildar, in favour of D.2. On 04.12.2019, the plaintiff

demanded D.2 to get the said mutation cancelled, but D.2 denied the

same. Even D.1 executed a registered sale deed bearing document

No.1096 of 2010, dated 23.04.2010 in favour of D.2 basing on which

D.2 created mutation proceeding without any valid title. The Plaintiff

is not party to the said registered sale deed and mutation proceedings.

Therefore, the plaintiff sought to declare the said documents and

mutation proceedings as null and void, inoperative and not binding on

him. On 03.12.2009, plaintiff requested D.2 to cancel the mutation

proceedings and fabricated registered sale deed bearing document

No.5387 of 2019 dated 03.08.2019 executed by D.2 in favour of D.3

but he denied.

6. D.Nos.1 to 3/respondents 2 to 4 herein filed written statement

in the said suit denying the averments made by the plaintiff.

7. During pendency of the said suit, 1st respondent herein filed

an application vide I.A.No.1098 of 2024 under Order I Rule 10(2) of

the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC') to implead him as

Defendant No.4 in the suit stating that D.3 sold to him the suit

schedule property to him under a registered sale deed bearing

document No.869 of 2022, dated 09.05.2022 and put him in

possession of the subject property. Pattadar passbooks were also

issued in his favour. At the time of purchase, he had no knowledge of

pendency of suit. If he is not impleaded in the suit, he would suffer

irreparable loss.

8. The plaintiff filed counter in the said I.A.No.1098 of 2024

denying the averments in the petition and contended that as per the

Encumbrance Certificate dated 24.12.2024, the alleged sale deed was

executed on 18.07.2022 which is prohibited by virtue of order in

I.A.No.81 of 2020, dated 21.06.2022 wherein it was ordered not to

alienate the suit schedule property till disposal of main suit. As such,

D.4 did not acquire any right or title by virtue of the alleged registered

sale deed bearing document No.869 of 2022 as D.1 to 3 failed to

obtain possession of the attached property within a period of one year

from the date of confirmation of sale. D.4 has no prima facie case and

no locus standi.

9. Vide order dated 28.02.2025, learned Trial Court allowed the

said I.A.1098 of 2024 restraining the defendants from alienating the

suit schedule property. The sale deed was executed on 09.05.2022 and

the same was registered on 18.07.2022. Therefore, referring to Section

47 of the Registration Act, 1908, learned trial Court held that interest

of 1st respondent/D.4 will be prejudiced if he is not impleaded as D.4

in the said suit. Learned Trial Court also placed reliance on Section 52

of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, 'T.P.Act').

10. Aggrieved by the said order dated 28.02.2025 passed in

I.A.No.1098 of 2024 in O.S.No.78 of 2020 by the Principal Junior

Civil Judge, at Karimnagar, the plaintiff filed the present revision

contending as follows:-

i. The trial Court erred in not realizing the fact that as on the date

of registration of sale deed by D.2 in favour of D.3, injunction

order is subsisting and D.3 had violated the order passed in

I.A.No.81 of 2020 in O.S.No.78 of 2020.

ii. The trial Court failed to see that D.1 to D.3 failed to recover the

possession within a period of one year from the date of

confirmation of sale, as such D.4 did not acquire any right or

title over the suit property as the suit property is in possession

of the plaintiff by virtue of Ex. P.5-report of Girdawar,

Choppadandi Revenue Mandal.

iii. The Court below failed to see that D.4 or his alleged vendor D.3

is not in possession over the suit schedule property since the

sale certificate dated 06.09.2005 does not confer any title much

less any legal right to transfer.

iv. The trial Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the

plaintiff executed mortgage deed as a security for the loan

amount which was already paid by him.

v. The trial Court wrongly interpreted Section 47 of Registration

Act, 1908, as the sale deed is not even marked. The execution

of sale deed 09.05.2022 was prior to the interim orders dated

21.06.2022 passed in I.A. No. 81 of 2020 restraining the

defendants from alienating the suit schedule property and any

document executed is not binding on the parties, pending suit

and the registration dated 18.07.2022 was subsequent to the said

orders. Therefore, said registration does not create any third

party interest.

11.The respondents 1 to 4 herein/Defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed

counter denying the averments made by the petitioner herein/plaintiff

contending as follows:-

i. D.3 has executed a registered sale deed vide

Doc.No.869/2022, dated 09.05.2022 in favour of 1st

respondent/proposed D.4 in respect of suit schedule property

and put him in possession of the same.

ii. Since then, 1st respondent/ D.4 is in continuous possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property and cultivating the

same.

iii. At the time of purchase, he had no knowledge of pendency of

the subject suit. He purchased the said property after verifying

the revenue record of D.3 and found that D.3 was recorded as

owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.

iv. The trial Court held that the subject suit is connected to

O.S.No.359 of 2019 and common issues were framed and to

avoid further multiplicity of the proceedings and to protect the

rights of 1st respondent/proposed D.4, the trial Court rights

permitted him to implead in the suit.

v. Even the common order in I.A.Nos.81 and 82 of 2020, dated

21.06.2022 in O.S.No.78 of 2020 filed by d.4 and also

I.A.No.85 of 2019 in O.S.No.359 of 2020 filed by the

plaintiff/D.3, the trial Court allowed I.A.No.85 of 2019 but

dismissed I.A.No.82 of 2020 filed by the plaintiff.

12. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the

respondent No.1/D.4 sought to dismiss the revision.

13. The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that the

petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.78 of 2020 and he has filed the said suit

for declaration and also to declare the sale certificate registered sale

deeds as null and void. He has also filed I.A.No.81 of 2020 in the said

suit restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering and

changing nature of the suit schedule property in any manner. Vide

order dated 31.06.2022 in I.A.No.81 of 2020 in O.S.No.78 of 2020,

learned trial Court restrained the defendant from alienating the suit

schedule property.

14. During pendency of the said suit and I.A.No.81 of 2020, D.3

has executed a sale deed in favour of 1st respondent/proposed D.4 on

09.05.2022 with regard to the suit schedule property. The same was

registered on 18.07.2022 vide document No.869 of 2022. Thus, 1st

respondent/proposed D.4 is pendent-lite purchaser. Therefore, he

sought to implead in the present suit contending that he has right and

interest over the suit schedule property. Therefore he is necessary

party to the said suit. It is also contended by him that if he is not

impleaded in the said suit and if the suit is decreed, he will be put to

irreparable loss and injury.

15. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to note that

Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, deals with adding of a party to the suit and it

says if the Court is satisfied that it is necessary for determination of

the real matter in dispute so to add, or any person to be substituted or

added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks fit.

16. The said application can be filed at any stage of the suit as

held by the Apex Court in Vidur Impex & Traders Pvt.Ltd vs Tosh

Apartment Pvt. Ltd. 1

2012 (8) SCC 384

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, referring to

Section 52 of T.P.Act, would contend that by virtue of execution of a

registered sale deed dated 18.07.2022, the conveyance in favour of 1st

respondent/proposed D.4 by D.3 is not proper. Only on execution of

registered sale deed, 1st respondent/proposed D.4 will get rights and

conveyance of subject property in his favour is complete. He has also

placed reliance of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908.

18. In the light of the same, it is relevant to note that Section 52

of the T.P.Act, deals with lis pendence and the same is extracted

below:-

52.Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.--During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in.

which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.

19. It is also relevant to note that Section 47 of the Registration

Act, deals with time from which registered document operates and the

same extracted below:-

47. Time from which registered document operates.

- A registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration.

20. As discussed supra, in the present case, the petitioner/

plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit O.S.No.78 of 2020 in January,

2020. He has also filed I.A.No.81 of 2020 along with the suit to

restrain the defendants from alienating, encumbering and changing

physical features of the suit schedule property in any manner. Vide

order dated 21.06.2022, I.A.No.81 of 2020 learned trial Court

restrained the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property.

According to the 1st respondent/proposed D.4, D.3 had executed sale

deed in his favour on 09.05.2022 with regard to suit schedule property

and the same was registered on 18.07.2022 vide document No.869 of

2022. Therefore, according to the petitioner/plaintiff, the conveyance

of suit schedule property in favour of 1st respondent/ proposed D.4

was only on 18.07.2022, the date on which the aforesaid registered

sale deed was executed. Therefore, Section 52 of T.P. Act, will come

into play only from the date of execution of the registered sale deed

dated 18.07.2022 by which date, order dated 21.06.2022 in I.A.No.81

of 2022 in O.S.No.78 of 2020 is subsisting.

21. The impleadment of pendente-lite purchaser is no more res

integra.

22. It is settled legal position that the effect of Section 52 of the

T.P.Act, is not to render transfers affected during the pendency of a

suit by a party to the suit void; but only to render such transfers

subservient to the rights of the parties to such suit, as may be,

eventually, determined in the suit. In other words, the transfer remains

valid subject, of course, to the result of the suit. The pendente lite

purchaser would be entitled to or suffer the same legal rights and

obligations of his vendor as may be eventually determined by the

Court. The said principle was laid by the Apex Court in A.Nawab

John vs. V.N.Subramaniyam2.

23. In Sanjay Verma vs Manik Roy 3, the Apex Court held that

mere pendency of a suit does not prevent one of the parties from

dealing with the property constituting the subject matter of the suit.

The Section only postulates a condition that the alienation will in no

manner affect the rights of the other party under any decree which

may be passed in the suit unless the property was alienated with the

permission of the Court.

(2012) 7 SCC 738

2006 (13) SCC 608

24. In A.Nawab John (supra), the Apex Court examined the

scope of Section 52 of the T.P.Act, paragraph Nos.19 and 20 are

relevant and extracted below:-

19. Such being the scope of Section 52, two questions arise:

whether a pendente lite purchaser (1) is entitled to be impleaded as a party to the suit; (2) once impleaded what are the grounds on which he is entitled to contest the suit.

20. 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 SC 394, 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 mortgaged 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.) to be brought on record to defend her interest because, as a purchaser pendent elite, she would be bound by the decree against her vendor.

25. Referring to divergence of opinion taken by the Apex Court

in Amit Kumar Shaw vs. Farida Khatoon, 4 in A.Nawab John

(supra), the Apex Court held that the preponderance of opinion is that a

pendente lite purchaser's application for impleadment should normally be

allowed or "considered liberally".

26. In Yogesh vs. Govind 5, it was held that on the ground of

execution of registered sale deed during pendency of the suit does not

automatically render it null and void, there exists no bar to the impleadment

of transferee's pendente lite with notice. Permitting the impleadment of a

transferee pendente lite, is in each case, a discretionary exercise undertaken

to enable a purchaser with a legally enforceable right to protect their

interests especially when the transferor fails to defend the suit or where

there is a possibility of collusion.

27. In H.Anjanappa vs. A.Prabhakar 6, the Apex Court laid

down certain parameters to implead a transferee pendente lite, the

same are as follows:-

i. First, for the purpose of impleading a transferee pendente lite, the facts and circumstances should be gone into and basing on the necessary facts, the Court can permit such a party to come on record, either under Order I Rule 10 CPC or under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, as a general principle;

(2005) 11 SCC 403

2024(4) ALT (SC 66 (DB) =

Civil Appeal Nos.1180-1181 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Civil)Nos.5785-5786 of 2023)

ii. ii. Secondly, a transferee pendente lite is not entitled to come on record as a matter of right;

iii. Thirdly, there is no absolute rule that such a transferee pendente lite, with the leave of the Court should, in all cases, be allowed to come on record as a party;

iv. Fourthly, the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite would depend upon the nature of the suit and appreciation of the material available on record;

v. Fifthly, where a transferee pendente lite does not ask for leave to come on record, that would obviously be at his peril, and the suit may be improperly conducted by the plaintiff on record;

vi. Sixthly, merely because such transferee pendente lite does not come on record, the concept of him (transferee pendente lite) not being bound by the judgment does not arise and consequently he would be bound by the result of the litigation, though he remains unrepresented;

vii. Seventhly, the sale transaction pendente lite is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act; and,

viii. viii. Eighthly, a transferee pendente lite, being an assignee of interest in the property, as envisaged under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, can seek leave of the Court to come record on his own or at the instance of either party to the suit.

28. In the said case, the Apex Court also examined the scope of

Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 10 and Section 146 of CPC. It was

further held that under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, the Court is required

to find a record that a person impleaded is either necessary or proper

party. The Court has to consider whether the rights of the pendent lite

purchaser would be prejudicially effected by the judgment to be passed

in the suit.

29. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court,

coming to the facts of the case on hand, as discussed supra, the

petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit on 27.01.2020 and also filed

I.A.No.81 of 2020 along with the said suit. The said suit and I.As. were

pending. Vide order dated 21.06.2022 in I.A.No.81 of 2020, learned trial

Court restrained the defendants from alienating the suit schedule

property. During pendency of the said suit and I.A., D.3 had executed

sale deed in favour of 1st respondent/proposed D.4 with regard to suit

schedule property on 09.05.2022. The same was registered on

18.07.2022 vide sale deed bearing document No.869 of 2022. In the said

sale deed, there is specific mention that D.3- vendor, has received total

sale consideration from respondent No.1/proposed D.4 and he was put in

possession of the suit schedule property. On 18.07.2022, the said sale

deed was registered. Admittedly, the same will operate only from

18.07.2022 in terms of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908. Vide

order dated 21.06.2022 in I.A.No.81 of 2022 in O.S.No.78 of 2020,

learned trial Court restrained defendants from alienating the suit

schedule property. Thus, as on 09.05.2022, there was no order

prohibiting D.3 from alienating the suit schedule property. Mere

pendency of the suit and I.A., is not a bar to D.3 in alienating the suit

schedule property. However, the same is subject to Section 52 of the

T.P.Act.

30. The suit schedule property in O.S.No.78 of 2020 is agricultural

land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.2/1 situated at Katnapalli

Village, Choppidandi Mandal, Karimnagar District. The Schedule

property in the aforesaid registered sale deed bearing document No.869

of 2022 dated 18.07.2022 is Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.2/1 of Katnapalli

village. Therefore, the suit schedule property in the said suit and

schedule property in the said registered sale deed is one and the same.

Boundaries are also same. Therefore, 1st respondent/proposed D.4 has

interest and right over the suit schedule property. If he is not impleaded,

his rights over the subject property will be effected prejudicially.

Therefore, he is a necessary and proper party to the present suit. Upon

consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order dated

28.02.2025, learned trial Court allowed I.A.No.1098 of 2024.

31. With regard to the contention of the petitioner/plaintiff that to

defeat the order dated 21.06.2022 in I.A.No.81 of 2020, 1st

respondent/proposed D.4 and D.3 are claiming that D.3 has executed a

sale deed on 09.05.2022 in favour of 1st respondent/proposed D.4 and

got it registered only on 18.07.2022. There was no payment of

consideration to D.3 by 1st respondent/Proposed D.4 on 09.05.2022.

However, the same are triable issues which the plaintiff has to take

during trial and it is for the trial Court to consider the same. The plaintiff

will be given an opportunity to cross-examine 1st respondent/proposed

D.4 with regard to payment of sale consideration to D.3 on 09.05.2022

and recitals of the said sale deed. At this stage, this Court cannot dismiss

the application filed by 1st respondent/proposed D.4 seeking

impleadment.

32. Sri M.Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner has

placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in Arjan Singh vs.

Punit Ahluwalia7 wherein the Apex Court held that any transaction in

violation of the order passed by the Court is void and it is hit by Section

52 of the T.P.Act.

33. As discussed supra, in the present case, the facts are slightly

different. The order of the trial Court was on 21.06.2022, according to

the 1st respondent/proposed D.4, the sale deed was executed on

09.05.2022 itself and the same was registered on 18.07.2022. As

(2008) 8 SCC 348

discussed supra, the plaintiff would be given an opportunity to cross-

examine 1st respondent/proposed D.4 with regard to payment of sale

consideration, possession etc., during trial and trial Court will consider

the same.

34. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on

the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Ghanshyam Sarda vs.

Sashikant Jha, Director of M/s J.K.Jute Mill Company Limited8. In

the said case also, conveyance deed for sale was executed before the

Court order, registration of the said deed was done after passing of

interim order prohibiting disposal of the subject property. It was held

that it amounts to contempt of Court and will not be invalidated. The

Apex Court also places reliance on the principle laid down by it in Suraj

Lamp Industries Private Limited vs. State of Haryana 9 wherein it

was held by the Apex Court held in paragraph No.19 as follows:-

19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of sections 54 and 55 of TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under section 53A of TP Act). According to TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of TP Act enacts that sale of immoveable property can be made only by a registered

(2017) 1 SCC 599

(2012) 1 SCC 656

instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter.

35. Referring to the said principles and also consideration of

Section 47 of the Registration Act, Sections 52, 53, 54 of T.P. Act, the

Apex Court held that the principle embodied under Section 47 of the

Registration Act is completely for different purposes. Insofar as the issue

of transfer is concerned, Section 54 of the TP Act, is the governing

principle, which is quite clear. It is the date of registration of the

document which is crucial inasmuch as the transfer is effected and the

title passes only upon registration.

36. As discussed supra, the facts therein are slightly different to

that of present case.

37. On consideration of the said aspects only, learned trial Court

allowed the application filed by him vide impugned order dated