RISHIKESH KUMAR Vs. BINAY KUMAR SRIVASTVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.B. Ojha, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Janam Maharaj, Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 7 to 9. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.2.2010 passed by learned Sub-Judge-2nd, Danapur in Title Suit No. 38 of 2008 whereby the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking impleadment in the title suit as a co-plaintiff has been rejected.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief is that a sale deed was executed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in favour of the defendant respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on 26.7.2006 and which was duly registered on 27.7.2006. On around two years since after the registration of the sale deed the suit in question came to be filed by the plaintiff, on 26.2.2008 seeking a declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the property which was subject matter of the sale deed registered on 27,7.2006 and for declaration thereof as null and void on grounds of fraud having been committed by the defendants and upon non-payment of the consideration amount. Even while the suit was pending consideration before the Trial Court, a second sale deed was executed by an Attorney holder of the plaintiff namely Sanjay Kumar in favour of the present petitioner on 29.3.2008. It is not in dispute that neither the plaintiff had executed the sale deed himself nor any such permission had been taken from the Trial Court before execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 29,3.2008 by either the plaintiff or the Attorney, holder in terms of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Soon thereafter the petitioner filed an application in question invoking the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment in the suit proceeding as a co-plaintiff. The application having been rejected by the learned court below inter alia on grounds of transaction being hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Act as also that the presence of the petitioner was not required for adjudication of the lis in question, hence the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. A.B. Ojha, Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon a catena of judgments submits that as admittedly the entire subject matter of the sale deed which is pending adjudication before the Trial Court in the suit in question, stands transferred in favour of the petitioner hence he becomes a relevant party as he has stepped into the shoes of the vendor by virtue of the sale deed executed on 29.3.2008.