# Deependra Chauhan Revisionist v. Phool Kumari Chauhan & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1254
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-13
- **Case number:** Civil Revision No. 12 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar Nigam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deependra-chauhan-revisionist-v-phool-kumari-chauhan-ors-52647
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Whether the court below has erred in law in
allowing the application filed by respondent Nos.
4 and 5 on the basis of an agreement to sell
executed in their favour by respondent as the
agreement to sell does not confer any title on
the parties.

Head Notes
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882Section 52& 54; The Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908-Section 115 & Order I
Rule 10- Section 54 of the Transfer of
Property Act, an agreement to sell does
not create any interest in or charge upon
such property which is subject matter of
the agreement to sell- A person having an
agreement for sale does not get any right
over the property except the right of
litigation on that basis-Contract for sale is
a right created in personam and not in
estate- Object of Order I Rule 10 is to
discourage contests on technical pleas,
and
to
save
honest and
bona
fide
claimants
from
being
non-suited-The
power to strike out or add parties can be
exercised by the court at any stage of the
proceedings- Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act is an expression of the
principle "pending a litigation nothing new
should be introduced". It provides that
pendente
lite,
neither
party
to
the
litigation, in which any right to immovable
property is in question, can alienate or
otherwise deal with such property so as to
affect his appointment- Revision allowed.

Held-A person having an agreement to sell in his
favour is neither necessary nor a proper party to
the suit. The court has erroneously allowed the
application
for
impleadment
filed
by
respondent.(Para 14, 17, 19 & 22)
Revision allowed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb
and Another; 2004 (1) SCC 191; Rambaran
Prosad v. Ram Mohit Hazra and others reported
in AIR 1967 SC 744 & MANU/SC/0212/1966;
Jiwan Das v. Narain Das, AIR 1981 Delhi 291;
Maung Shwe Goh v. Maung Inn, 1917(1) Bom
LR 179; Babu Lal and others v. Nathi Lal
reported
in
2013
(6)
ADJ
111
(MANU/UP/0838/2013);
Rambhau
Namdeo
Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra (dead) through
LRS. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 614; State of
U.P. v. District Judge and others reported in
(1997) 1 SCC 496

List of Acts
11 All. Deependra Chauhan Vs. Phool Kumari Chauhan & Ors.
1255
The Constitution of India, 1950; The Transfer of
Property Act, 1882; The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908

List of Keywords
Order I Rule 10; Section 52 TP Act; Agreement
to sell; No right of property; except right to
litigation; Pendente lite;

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 29.08.2023 passed
by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gautam Buddh
Nagar in Original Suit No. 347 of 2020
(Deependra Chauhan Vs. Phool Kumari Chauhan
and others), allowing an application filed by
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 under Order I Rule 10
of C.P.C.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner : Shiv Sagar Singh
Counsel for Respondent : Aditya Gupta, Harsh
Vardhan Gupta, J.b. Singh, Vijay Kumar

## Text

1254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
And, that is that all litigation must come to
end and there must be a quietus given to
strife that a cause of action produces.

21. In the totality of circumstances, we
are of opinion that no case for interference
in the exercise of our jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution with the
orders impugned passed by the Additional
Commissioner and the Board of Revenue is
made out.

22. The writ petition fails and is
dismissed.

23. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1254
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Civil Revision No. 12 of 2024

Deependra Chauhan ...Revisionist
Versus
Phool Kumari Chauhan & Ors.
 ...Opposite Party (s)

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Shiv Sagar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Aditya Gupta, Harsh Vardhan Gupta, J.B.
Singh, Vijay Kumar

Issue for Consideration
Whether the court below has erred in law in
allowing the application filed by respondent Nos.
4 and 5 on the basis of an agreement to sell
executed in their favour by respondent as the
agreement to sell does not confer any title on
the parties.

Head Notes
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882Section 52& 54; The Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908-Section 115 & Order I
Rule 10- Section 54 of the Transfer of
Property Act, an agreement to sell does
not create any interest in or charge upon
such property which is subject matter of
the agreement to sell- A person having an
agreement for sale does not get any right
over the property except the right of
litigation on that basis-Contract for sale is
a right created in personam and not in
estate- Object of Order I Rule 10 is to
discourage contests on technical pleas,
and
to
save
honest and
bona
fide
claimants
from
being
non-suited-The
power to strike out or add parties can be
exercised by the court at any stage of the
proceedings- Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act is an expression of the
principle "pending a litigation nothing new
should be introduced". It provides that
pendente
lite,
neither
party
to
the
litigation, in which any right to immovable
property is in question, can alienate or
otherwise deal with such property so as to
affect his appointment- Revision allowed.

Held-A person having an agreement to sell in his
favour is neither necessary nor a proper party to
the suit. The court has erroneously allowed the
application
for
impleadment
filed
by
respondent.(Para 14, 17, 19 & 22)
Revision allowed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb
and Another; 2004 (1) SCC 191; Rambaran
Prosad v. Ram Mohit Hazra and others reported
in AIR 1967 SC 744 & MANU/SC/0212/1966;
Jiwan Das v. Narain Das, AIR 1981 Delhi 291;
Maung Shwe Goh v. Maung Inn, 1917(1) Bom
LR 179; Babu Lal and others v. Nathi Lal
reported
in
2013
(6)
ADJ
111
(MANU/UP/0838/2013);
Rambhau
Namdeo
Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra (dead) through
LRS. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 614; State of
U.P. v. District Judge and others reported in
(1997) 1 SCC 496

List of Acts
11 All. Deependra Chauhan Vs. Phool Kumari Chauhan & Ors.
1255
The Constitution of India, 1950; The Transfer of
Property Act, 1882; The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908

List of Keywords
Order I Rule 10; Section 52 TP Act; Agreement
to sell; No right of property; except right to
litigation; Pendente lite;

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 29.08.2023 passed
by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gautam Buddh
Nagar in Original Suit No. 347 of 2020
(Deependra Chauhan Vs. Phool Kumari Chauhan
and others), allowing an application filed by
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 under Order I Rule 10
of C.P.C.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner : Shiv Sagar Singh
Counsel for Respondent : Aditya Gupta, Harsh
Vardhan Gupta, J.b. Singh, Vijay Kumar

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar
Nigam, J.)

1. This revision has been filed
challenging the judgment and order dated
29.08.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Senior
Division) Gautam Buddh Nagar in Original
Suit No. 347 of 2020 (Deependra Chauhan
Vs. Phool Kumari Chauhan and others),
allowing an application filed by respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 under Order I Rule 10 of
C.P.C. being paper No. 57 Ga-2.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
Original Suit No. 347 of 2020 (Deependra
Chauhan Vs. Phool Kumari Chauhan and
others) was instituted by the plaintiffrevisionist for a decree of partition of the
suit property bearing No. C-103 B Sector39, NOIDA, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar
area 163 sq. mtrs. The other relief sought in
the suit was a decree of permanent
injunction restraining the defendants and
their associates from dispossessing the
plaintiff from suit property and further
restraining them from creating any third
party interest in the property in dispute. As
per the plaint case, property in question
belonged to Sri B.S. Chauhan s/o M.S.
Chauhan, (father of the plaintiff-revisionist)
and Smt. Phool Kumari w/o Sri B.S.
Chauhan
(mother
of
the
plaintiffrevisionist). After the death of the father of
the revisionist i.e. Sri B.S. Chauhan, with
the consent of his heirs, name of Smt.
Phool Kumari Chauhan i.e. mother of the
revisionist was mutated in the records of
NOIDA Authority. According to the plaint
case, the property in question was joint
property in which plaintiff had a share
being heir of deceased B.S. Chauhan after
his death. A dispute arose between the
members of the family which lead to the
institution of the present suit. During
pendency of the suit an application under
Order I Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. read with
Section 151 C.P.C. was filed by the
respondent
Nos.
4
and
5
claiming
impleadment in the suit on the ground that
the defendant No. 1 (mother of the
plaintiff) has executed an agreement to sell
in their favour on 12.07.2023. To the said
application, the plaintiff-revisionist filed
his objection claiming inter alia that the
defendant No. 1 is not the sole owner of the
property and is a co-owner of the property
with plaintiff and other defendants in the
suit and has no right to execute the
agreement to sell in respect of the entire
property in dispute. It has also been
pleaded that the agreement to sell has been
executed by the defendant No. 1 in
collusion with defendant No. 2 in order to
frustrate
the
claim
of
the plaintiffrevisionist. It has been further pleaded that
after the institution of the suit, defendant
No. 1 applied for permission from NOIDA
Authority for no objection to sell the
property, which has been rejected by the
NOIDA
Authority
by
order
dated
1256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14.06.2023. The trial court by judgment
and order dated 29.08.2023 allowed the
impleadment
application
filed
by
respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Hence the present
revision.

3. It has also been contended by
counsel for the revisionist that court below
has erred in law in allowing the application
filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on the
basis of an agreement to sell executed in
their favour by respondent No. 1 as the
agreement to sell does not confer any title
on the parties. At the best, holder of an
agreement to sell is entitled for specific
performance of the agreement. It has been
further contended that NOIDA Authority
has refused permission to execute the sale
deed of the property in dispute by order
dated
14.06.2023.
It has
also
been
contended that respondent No. 1 being coowner has no right to execute the
agreement to sell of the entire property in
favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and as a
matter of fact, the agreement to sell has
been executed by respondent No. 1 in
collusion with respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5
in order to frustrate the claim of the
plaintiff-revisionist. Learned counsel for
the revisionist submitted that agreement to
sell executed in favour of respondent Nos.
4 and 5 is hit by Section 52 of Transfer of
Property Act.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the agreement
to sell was validly executed by respondent
No. 1 in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
It has also been contended by counsel for
the respondent that because of agreement to
sell in their favour, respondent Nos. 4 and 5
have interest in the suit property and
therefore, they are necessary party in the
suit and the application filed by them has
rightly been allowed by the trial court.

5. In reply to the submissions made by
counsel for the respondent, learned counsel
for the revisionist submitted that question
involved to be decided in the suit is
whether defendant-respondent No. 1 is the
sole owner of the property in dispute or is a
co-sharer along with plaintiff and other
respondents and unless, such question is
finally determined, she has no right to
execute the agreement to sell in favour of
respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It has been further
submitted that since agreement to sell does
not convey any right except to get the sale
deed executed in pursuance of agreement to
sell, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are neither
necessary nor proper party to the suit and
the court below has wrongly allowed the
application.

6. An agreement to sell of property
and promise to transfer the property convey
the same meaning and effect in law. A
promise
to
transfer
property
is
an
agreement for sale of property. According
to Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act,
an agreement to sell does not create any
interest in the proposed vendee in the suit
property but only creates an enforceable
right to the parties. An agreement for sale is
not the same as sale and the title to the
property agreed to be sold vests in the
vendor in case of an agreement to sell but
in the case of sale, title of property vests
with the purchaser. An agreement for sale
is a executory contract wherein a sale is a
executed contract. The question as to
whether an agreement to sell creates any
right is no more res-integra and has been
settled by authoritative pronouncement
made by this Court as well as Apex Court
and various other High Courts.

7. The Supreme Court in case of State
of U.P. v. District Judge and others
11 All. Deependra Chauhan Vs. Phool Kumari Chauhan & Ors.
1257
reported in (1997) 1 SCC 496 held in
paragraph no. 7 as under:

"7. Having given our anxious
consideration to the rival contentions we
find that the High Court with respect had
patently erred in taking the view that
because of Section 53-A of the Transfer of
Property Act the proposed transferees of
the land had acquired an interest in the
lands which would result in exclusion of
these lands from the computation of the
holding of the tenure-holder transferor on
the appointed day. It is obvious that an
agreement to sell creates no interest in
land. As per Section 54 of the Transfer of
Property Act, the property in the land gets
conveyed only by registered Sale Deed. It is
not in dispute that the lands sought to be
covered were having value of more than
Rs.100/-. Therefore, unless there was a
registered document of sale in favour of the
proposed transferee agreement holders, the
title of the lands would not get divested
from the vendor and would remain in his
ownership. There is no dispute on this
aspect."

8. In case of Rambhau Namdeo
Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra (dead)
through LRS. reported in (2004) 8 SCC
614, the Supreme Court held in paragraph
no. 13 as under:

"13. The agreement to sell does
not create an interest in the proposed
vendee in the suit property. As per Section
54 of the Act, the title in immovable
property valued at more than Rs. 100/- can
be conveyed only by executing a registered
sale deed. Section 54 specifically provides
that a contract for sale of immovable
property is a contract evidencing the fact
that the sale of such property shall take
place on the terms settled between the
parties, but does not, of itself, create any
interest in or charge on such property. It is
not disputed before us that the suit land
sought to be conveyed is of the value of
more than Rs. 100. Therefore, unless there
was a registered document of sale in favour
of the Pishorrilal (proposed transferee) the
title of the suit land continued to vest in
Narayan Bapuji Dhotra (original plaintiff)
and remain in his ownership....."

9. This Court in case of Babu Lal and
others v. Nathi Lal reported in 2013 (6)
ADJ 111 (MANU/UP/0838/2013), has
held in paragraph no. 17 as under:

"17. The agreement for sale or
contract for sale, by itself is not an
instrument
giving
effect
to
sale
of
immoveable property. The title to property
agreed to be sold continued to vests in the
vendor, in case of agreement for sale, but
in case of sale, title or property vests with
purchaser. In other words an agreement for
sale is an executory contract whereas sale
deed is an executed contract. An agreement
for sale does not create an interest in the
proposed vendee in the suit property but
only creates an enforceable right in parties.
An agreement for sale of property, and
promise to transfer the property convey the
same meaning and effect in law. A promise
to transfer property is an agreement for
sale of property."

10. In Maung Shwe Goh v. Maung
Inn, 1917(1) Bom LR 179 the Court
considered Section 54 of Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 and said that a contract
for sale by virtue of Section 54 creates no
interest in or charge upon the land.

11. In Jiwan Das v. Narain Das, AIR
1981 Delhi 291 a Single Judge in para 10
1258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and 11 of the judgment, following
Rambaran Prosad (supra), said:

"10. . . . . . . the law in India does
not recognize any such estate. Section 54 of
the Transfer of Property Act in specific
terms provides that a contract for sale does
not, of itself, create any interest in or
charge on such property. Such contract is
merely a document creating a right to
obtain another document in the form of sale
deed to be registered in accordance with
law. In other words, a contract for sale is a
right created in personam and not in estate,
No privity in estate can be deduced there
from which can bind estate, as is the
position in cases of mortgage, charge or
lease. Of course, such personal right
created against the vendor to obtain
specific performance can ultimately bind
any subsequent transferee who obtains
transfer of the property with notice of the
agreement of sale.

11. Till, therefore, a decree for
specific performance is obtained, the
vendor or a purchaser from him is entitled
to full enjoyment of the property. In fact,
even if a decree for specific performance of
contract is obtained, and no sale-deed is
actually executed, it cannot be said that
any interest in the property has passed."

12.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents submitted that agreement to
sell created an equitable interest in the land
in favour of proposed vendee. Argument of
learned counsel for the respondents is
misconceived. The law in India does not
recognize equitable estates and the English
rule that the contract makes proposed
vendee owner in equity of the estate does
not apply in India.

13. In case of Rambaran Prosad v.
Ram Mohit Hazra and others reported
in
AIR
1967
SC
744
&
MANU/SC/0212/1966, the Supreme Court
has held in paragraph nos. 14 & 15 as
under:

14. In the case of an agreement
for sale entered into prior to the passing of
the Transfer of Property Act, it was the
accepted doctrine in India that the
agreement created an interest in the land
itself in favour of the purchaser.....

15. But there has been a change
in the legal position in India since the
passing of the Transfer of Property Act.
Section 54 of the Act states that a contract
for sale of immovable property "does not,
of itself, create any interest in or charge on
such property"

14. Thus, in my view from the judicial
opinion as discussed above and in view of
Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act,
an agreement to sell does not create any
interest in or charge upon such property
which is subject matter of the agreement to
sell.
The
prospective
vendee
in
an
agreement to sell only gets a right to get the
agreement
specifically
enforced
for
execution of sale deed. In other words, a
person having an agreement for sale does
not get any right over the property except
the right of litigation on that basis. A
contract for sale does not, by itself, create
any interest in or charge on such property.
Such contract is merely a document
creating a right to obtain another document
in the form of sale deed to be registered in
accordance with law. In other words, a
contract for sale is a right created in
personam and not in estate. No privity in
estate can be deduced therefrom which can
bind the estate, as is the position in cases of
mortgage, charge or lease. Contract for sale
would not make the proposed vendee to be
owner in equity of the estate so long as sale
11 All. Deependra Chauhan Vs. Phool Kumari Chauhan & Ors.
1259
deed is not executed. Of course, such
personal right created against the vendor to
obtain specific performance can ultimately
bind any subsequent transferee who obtains
transfer of the property with notice of the
agreement of sale. Till, therefore, a decree
for specific performance is obtained, the
vendor or a purchaser from him is entitled
to full enjoyment of the property. In fact,
even if a decree for specific performance of
contract is obtained, and no sale-deed is
actually executed, it cannot be said that any
interest in the property has passed.

15. Contention of learned counsel for
the revisionist is that the Section 52 of
Transfer of Property Act prohibits the
alienation of property in dispute during
pendency of the suit so as to affect the right
of other party to the suit without obtaining
leave from the court. It is further contended
that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have no
interest in the property and are neither
necessary nor proper party to the suit.

16. It is beneficial to reproduce Order
I Rule 10 and Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 which read as under:

"Order I Rule 10

10. Suit in name of wrong
plaintiff.-(1) Where a suit has been
instituted in the name of the wrong person
as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether
it has been instituted in the name of the
right plaintiff, the court may at any stage of
the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been
instituted through a bona fide mistake, and
that it is necessary for the determination of
the real matter in dispute so to do, order
any other person to be substituted or added
as plaintiff upon such terms as the court
thinks just.

(2) Court may strike out or add
parties. The court may at any stage of the
proceedings, either upon or without the
application of either party, and on such
terms as may appear to the court to be just,
order that the name of any party
improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or
defendant, be struck out, and that the name
of any person who ought to have been
joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or
whose presence before the court may be
necessary in order to enable the court
effectually and completely to adjudicate
upon and settle all the questions involved in
the suit, be added.

(3) No person shall be added as a
plaintiff suing without a next friend or as
the next friend of a plaintiff under any
disability without his consent.

(4)
Where
defendant
added,
plaint to be amended. Where a defendant is
added, the plaint shall, unless the court
otherwise directs, be amended in such
manner as may be necessary, and amended
copies of the summons and of the plaint
shall be served on the new defendant and, if
the court thinks fit, on the original
defendant.

(5) Subject to the provisions of
the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of
1877), Section 22, the proceedings as
against any person added as defendant
shall be deemed to have begun only on the
service of the summons."

Section 52 of the Transfer of Property
Act

"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
immovable
property
is
directly
and
1260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 the decree or order which
may be made therein, except under the
authority of the court and on such terms as
it may impose.

Explanation. For the purposes of
this section, the pendency of a suit or
proceeding shall be deemed to commence
from the date of the presentation of the
plaint or the institution of the proceeding in
a court of competent jurisdiction, and to
continue until the suit or proceeding has
been disposed of by a final decree or order
and complete satisfaction or discharge of
such decree or order has been obtained, or
has become unobtainable by reason of the
expiration of any period of limitation
prescribed for the execution thereof by any
law for the time being in force."

17. The object of Order I Rule 10 is to
discourage contests on technical pleas, and
to save honest and bona fide claimants
from being non-suited. The power to strike
out or add parties can be exercised by the
court at any stage of the proceedings.
Under this rule, a person may be added as a
party to a suit in the following two cases:

(1) when he ought to have been
joined as plaintiff or defendant, and is not
joined so, or

(2) when, without his presence,
the questions in the suit cannot be
completely decided.

18. The power of a court to add a party
to a proceeding cannot depend solely on the
question whether he has interest in the suit
property. The question is whether the right
of a person may be affected if he is not
added as a party. Such right, however, will
necessarily include an enforceable legal
right.

19. Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act is an expression of the
principle "pending a litigation nothing new
should be introduced". It provides that
pendente lite, neither party to the litigation,
in which any right to immovable property
is in question, can alienate or otherwise
deal with such property so as to affect his
appointment. This section is based on
equity and good conscience and is intended
to protect the parties to litigation against
alienations by their opponent during the
pendency of the suit. In order to constitute
a lis pendens, the following elements must
be present:

1. There must be a suit or
proceeding pending in a court of competent
jurisdiction.

2. The suit or proceeding must
not be collusive.

3. The litigation must be one in
which right to immovable property is
directly and specifically in question.

4. There must be a transfer of or
otherwise dealing with the property in
dispute by any party to the litigation.

5. Such transfer must affect the
rights of the other party that may ultimately
accrue under the terms of the decree or
order.

20. The doctrine of lis pendens applies
only where the lis is pending before a
court. Further pending the suit, the
transferee is not entitled as of right to be
made a party to the suit, though the court
has a discretion to make him a party. But
the transferee pendente lite can be added
as a proper party if his interest in the
subject-matter of the suit is substantial
and not just peripheral.
11 All. Chandraprakash Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1261

21. In case of Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs.
Nabi Hassan Saheb and Another; 2004 (1)
SCC 191, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
as under in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11:-

"10. The decisions cited and relied
on behalf of the appellant turned on the facts of
each of those cases. They are distinguishable.
There is no absolute rule that the transferee
pendente-lite without leave of the court should
in all cases be allowed to join and contest the
pending suits. The decision relied on behalf of
the contesting respondents of this court in the
case of Savinder Singh (supra) fully supports
them in their contentions. After quoting section
52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the relevant
observations are thus :-

"Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act envisages that :-

'During the pendency in any court
having authority within the limits of India .. of
any suit or proceeding which is not collusive
and in which any right to immovable 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 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 circumstances, the respondents cannot be
considered to be either necessary or proper
parties to the suit. "

11. In case of Dhurandhar Prasad
Singh, observations relevant for the purpose of
these appeals read thus:-

"Where a party does not ask for
leave, he takes the obvious risk that the suit may
not be property conducted by the plaintiff on
record, yet he will be bound by the result of the
litigation even though he is not represented at
the hearing unless it is shown that the litigation
was not properly conducted by the original
party or he colluded with the adversary."

22. In the present case, the respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 have not acquired any right in the
property in dispute as there is only an
agreement to sell in their favour and not a sale
deed. The proposed vendee in an agreement to
sell in his favour do not get any right in law or
even in equity with regard to the property
covered under the agreement and has only right
to get another deed executed. Therefore, in my
view a person having an agreement to sell in his
favour is neither necessary nor a proper party to
the suit. The court has erroneously allowed the
application for impleadment filed by respondent
Nos. 4 and 5.

23. The court below has acted in exercise of
its jurisdiction with material irregularity. The
judgment and order dated 29.08.2023 is hereby set
aside. The revision is allowed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1261
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Criminal Revision No. 814 of 2025

Chandraprakash Yadav & Ors.
 ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties