BIBI ZUBAIDA KHATOON versus NABI HASSAN SAHEB AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 290 · Decided: 06-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
BIBI ZUBAIDA KHA TOON 
V. 
NABI HASSAN SAHEB AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 6, 2003 
(SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Section 52-Suits--Transfer of suit 
property during pendency of suit-Transferee pendente-lite without permission 
C of Court seekingjoinder to the suits and amendment of petilion-Rejection of 
plea by Trial Court and High Court-On appeal, held: ordinarily, such 
transferee should be joined as party but in the/acts of the case,joinder of the 
transferee to the suits was rightly rejected-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-
0rder 1 Rule JO and Order 6 Rule 17. 
D 
During pendency of two cross-suits, appellant purchased the suit 
property without seeking leave of the Court as required by Section 52 of 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On the strength of having purchased the 
property, she filed two applications for being impleaded as party in the 
suits and third application for amendment of the pleadings consequent to 
her proposed joinder as party to the suits. Trial Court dismissed the three 
E applications on the grounds that property having been purchased during 
pendency of the suit, the decree passed in the suit shall bind her pendente-
/ite; and that the suit being old, needed earliest disposal. Revision against 
the orders was dismissed by High Court. 
F 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that even though the 
petitioner is a transferee pendente-lite within the meaning of Section 52 of 
the Transfer of Property Act, trial court should have afforded effective 
opportunity to her to prosecute the suits and her applications ought to 
have been allowed. 
G 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in rejecting 
t'he three applications for impleadment of the transferee pendete-lite as 
party to the suits and for amendment of the pleadings. High Court was 
also justified in refusing to interfere with the order of the trial court. The 
II 
290 
BIBI ZUBAIDA KHA TOON v. NAB! HASSAN SAHEB [DHARMADHIKARI, J.] 29 J 
petitioner being a transferee pendete-lite without leave of the court cannot, A 
as of right, seek impleadment as a party in the suits which are long pending 
since 1983. It is true that when the application for joinder based on 
transfer pendente lite is made, the transferee should ordinarily be joined 
as party to enable him to protect his interest. But in the instant case, the 
trial court has assigned cogent reasons for rejecting such joinder stating B 
that the suit is long pending since 1983 and prima facie the act of the 
alienation does not appear to be bona fide. The trial court saw an attempt 
on the party of the petitioner to complicate and delay the pending suits. 
[294-D-E; 293-C-D) 
Savinder Singh v. Dalip Singh and Ors., [1996) 5 SCC 539 and C 
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University and Ors., [2001] 6 SCC 
534, relied on. 
Khemchand Shankar Choudhari and Anr. v. Vishnu Hari Patil and Ors., 
(1983] 1 SCC 18; Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami and Ors., AIR (1973) 
SC 569 and Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Ors., AIR (1999) D 
SC 976 and Saila Bala Dassi v. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and Anr., [1958] SCR 
1287, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 854-855 of 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.97 of the Patna High Court 
in C.R. No. 137 and 180 of 1997. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 856 of 1998. 
S.B. Sanyal, Akhilesh K. Pandey, Ashok K. Pandey and Ranjan 
Mukherjee for the Appellants. 
A. Sharan, Bharat Ram Praveen Swarup and A.P. Medh for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DHARMADHIKARI, J. These appeals are directed against a common 
judgement dated 28.7.1997 passed by High Court of Patna in two revisions 
under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure [hereinafter referred to as 
E 
F 
G 
'the Code']. 
H 
292 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
In the cross suits, one filed for redemption of mortgage and the other 
filed for specific performance of Agreement of Sale, the petitioner made two 
applications, for her impleadment as 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 I Rule I 0, Order 22 Rule 
B 
IO and Order 6 Rule I 7 of the Code. 
According to the petitioner during pendency of the suits, she has 
purchased th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.