Recently, the Allahabad High Court heard a civil revision challenging an order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Buddh Nagar, which had permitted two proposed purchasers to be added as parties in a pending partition suit concerning a residential property in NOIDA.
The suit was originally filed by the plaintiff seeking partition and permanent injunction over property No. C-103B, Sector-39, NOIDA, asserting joint ownership through inheritance from his deceased father. During the pendency of the proceedings, two purchasers moved an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC claiming a right to be impleaded on the basis of an agreement to sell allegedly executed in their favour by the plaintiff’s mother.
The plaintiff opposed their impleadment, asserting that the mother was merely a co-owner and lacked authority to execute an agreement to sell for the entire property. It was further pointed out that the NOIDA Authority had already refused permission to execute any sale deed, and that the alleged agreement had been executed in collusion to defeat the pending claim.
The revisionist argued that an agreement to sell does not create any proprietary interest in immovable property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, and at best confers a right to seek specific performance. Therefore, purchasers claiming under such an agreement were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. It was also submitted that the transaction, executed during the pendency of the litigation, was hit by Section 52 TPA (doctrine of lis pendens).
In response, the proposed purchasers contended that the agreement gave them sufficient interest to justify their presence in the proceedings.
The Court revisited well-settled principles, that a contract for sale does not create any right in rem, does not transfer title, and does not confer any equitable estate in Indian law. The Court referred to multiple Apex Court decisions clarifying that only a registered sale deed transfers ownership, and that prospective purchasers have no independent right in the property until such execution.
The Court further observed that lis pendens prevents parties from altering the nature of rights in property during the pendency of litigation without leave of the court. A transferee pendente lite may be impleaded only where their interest is substantial and their presence is necessary for complete adjudication.
Since the alleged purchasers had no existing legal interest, merely an executory contract, and the sale was impermissible without NOIDA’s approval, the Court held that they could not be treated as necessary or proper parties solely on the basis of such an agreement.
Accordingly, the revision sought to set aside the trial court’s order allowing their impleadment.
Case Title: Deependra Chauhan Vs. Phool Kumari Chauhan and Others
Case No.: Civil Revision No. - 12 of 2024
Coram: Justice Manish Kumar Nigam
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Shiv Sagar Singh
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Aditya Gupta, Harsh Vardhan Gupta, J.b. Singh, Vijay Kumar
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
