TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s co-plaintiff in one suit and defendant in the other. Third application was filed for amendment of the pleadings consequent to her proposed joinder as a party in the two suits. The three applications were made respectively under Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. According to the petitioner during pendency of the suits, she has purchased the suit property in the year 1996 from the original plaintiff Amichand Agarwal and has, thus, acquired in his place the right of redemption of the mortgaged suit property. In the cross suit of the opposite party seeking specific performance of the Agreement of Sale based on the same acquisition of title during pendency of suit, joinder was sought to that suit as defendan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iar vs. Ayyaswami Ors [AIR 1973 SC 569]; Savitri Devi vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur Ors. [AIR 1999 SC 976]; Saila Bala Dassi vs. Nirmala Sundari Dassi Anr. [1958 SCR 1287]; and Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs. Jai Prakash University Ors. [2001 (6) SCC 534]. The learned counsel, appearing for the contesting respondents, supported the impugned orders of the trial court and the common order passed by the High Court. Reliance is placed on Savinder Singh vs. Dalip Singh Ors. [1996 (5) SCC 539]. It is not disputed that the present petitioner purchased the property during pendencey of the suit and without seeking leave of the court as required by section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner being a transferee pendente lite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under the decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the court and on such terms as it may impose.' It would, therefore, be clear that the defendants in the suit were prohibited by operation of section 52 to deal with the property and could not transfer or otherwise deal with it in any way affecting the rights of the appellant except with the order or authority of the court. Admittedly, the authority or order of the court had not been obtained for alienation of those properties. Therefore, the alienation obviously would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens by operation of section 52. Under these circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
