# Nagar Panchayat Akbarpur v. Member Board Of Revenue, U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1248
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-25
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 4503 of 2018
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nagar-panchayat-akbarpur-v-member-board-of-revenue-u-p-ors-52645
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Amit Sinha, Babu Lal Ram, C.S.C., Dinesh
Pathak, Mayuri Mehrotra, Rajan Upadhyay,
Rakesh Pathak, Ramesh Upadhyay (Sr.
Adv.), Shyam Sundar

Issue for consideration
Whether challenge to the rights of the
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and their transferees,
amounts to re-agitation of an issue which has
attained finality?

Headnotes
A. Land Law - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953: Section 9-A(2); U.P.
Z.A. and L.R. Act: Section 229-B - When
litigation ends with judgment, and that
judgment attains finality due to its
approval by the last Court or a nonchallenge, the losing party must know
that there cannot be a new beginning.
Once decided and finality attaches, the rights of
parties cannot be permitted to remain in a state
of perpetual uncertainty, with one side or the
other springing up a fresh challenge in some
way, direct or insidious. This is after all the
public policy underlying the doctrine of res
judicata. (Para 1)

Though at different stages of proceedings,
different parties have come forward to question
the rights of respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be
recorded in the land in dispute, the rights of
these respondents have been sufficiently
tested in proceedings u/s 9-A(2) of the
Consolidation Act, a declaratory suit and
earlier proceedings for correction u/s
33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, with the
event
being
in
favour
of
these
respondents consistently. Respondent Nos.3
and 4 and their transferees, for the said reason,
cannot be exposed to an incessant peril of
challenge to their rights by third parties, and
may be even the State, agitating the same
issues all over again.

The State and the Gaon Sabha were parties to
the proceedings under the Consolidation Act as
also the suit u/s 229-B. In fact, the Gaon Sabha
entered into a compromise with respondent
Nos.3 and 4 for exchange of one of the plots,
comprising the suit land. The petitioners are
after all successors of the Gaon Sabha and are
11 All. Nagar Panchayat Akbarpur Vs. Member Board Of Revenue, U.P. & Ors.
1249
bound by their acts, rights and liabilities. At no
point of time, the orders passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation dated 23.10.1975 or
the decree passed in the declaratory suit, were
questioned either by the Gaon Sabha or the
State, or even a third party. They have been
agitating the issue in proceedings for correction
of record u/s 33/39 and one set of challenge
has finally failed. In these circumstances, to
permit re-agitation of the same issue over
and over again, may not be a violation of
the principle of res judicata stricto sensu,
but it certainly violates the spirit of the
principle. 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. (Para 20)

No case for interference u/Article 226 of the
Constitution with the orders impugned passed
by the Additional Commissioner and the Board
of Revenue is made out. (Para 21)

Writ petition dismissed.

List of Acts
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; U.P.
Z.A. and L.R. Act.

List of Keywords
declaratory
suit,
re-agitaiton,
res-judicata,
finality, consolidation, holdings, rights.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner: Anurag Singh, Govind Krishna,
Kamla Singh
For Respondent: Amit Sinha, Babu Lal Ram,
C.S.C., Dinesh Pathak, Mayuri Mehrotra, Rajan
Upadhyay,
Rakesh
Pathak,
Ramesh
Upadhyaya(Senior Adv.), Shyam Sundar

## Text

1248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the lease deed requires careful scrutiny
as also the acquisition of the rights by the
defendants, in the light of the remarks
carried in the body of this judgment.

29. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and stands allowed in part. The
impugned judgment and decree dated
07.02.1983 passed by the Board of
Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad is quashed.
Second Appeal No. 194(z) of 197172/Hamirpur, Faiz Mohammad v. Mansa
Ram, stands restored to the file of the
Board, to be heard and determined within a
period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. Both
parties, who are represented by the learned
Counsel before this Court, will appear
before the Board on 05.12.2025.

30. There shall be no order as to costs.

31. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to communicate this order to the
Registrar, Board of Revenue, U.P. at
Allahabad.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1248
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ B No. 4503 of 2018

Nagar Panchayat Akbarpur ...Petitioner
Versus
Member Board Of Revenue, U.P. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anurag Singh, Govind Krishna, Kamla Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Amit Sinha, Babu Lal Ram, C.S.C., Dinesh
Pathak, Mayuri Mehrotra, Rajan Upadhyay,
Rakesh Pathak, Ramesh Upadhyay (Sr.
Adv.), Shyam Sundar

Issue for consideration
Whether challenge to the rights of the
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and their transferees,
amounts to re-agitation of an issue which has
attained finality?

Headnotes
A. Land Law - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953: Section 9-A(2); U.P.
Z.A. and L.R. Act: Section 229-B - When
litigation ends with judgment, and that
judgment attains finality due to its
approval by the last Court or a nonchallenge, the losing party must know
that there cannot be a new beginning.
Once decided and finality attaches, the rights of
parties cannot be permitted to remain in a state
of perpetual uncertainty, with one side or the
other springing up a fresh challenge in some
way, direct or insidious. This is after all the
public policy underlying the doctrine of res
judicata. (Para 1)

Though at different stages of proceedings,
different parties have come forward to question
the rights of respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be
recorded in the land in dispute, the rights of
these respondents have been sufficiently
tested in proceedings u/s 9-A(2) of the
Consolidation Act, a declaratory suit and
earlier proceedings for correction u/s
33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, with the
event
being
in
favour
of
these
respondents consistently. Respondent Nos.3
and 4 and their transferees, for the said reason,
cannot be exposed to an incessant peril of
challenge to their rights by third parties, and
may be even the State, agitating the same
issues all over again.

The State and the Gaon Sabha were parties to
the proceedings under the Consolidation Act as
also the suit u/s 229-B. In fact, the Gaon Sabha
entered into a compromise with respondent
Nos.3 and 4 for exchange of one of the plots,
comprising the suit land. The petitioners are
after all successors of the Gaon Sabha and are
11 All. Nagar Panchayat Akbarpur Vs. Member Board Of Revenue, U.P. & Ors.
1249
bound by their acts, rights and liabilities. At no
point of time, the orders passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation dated 23.10.1975 or
the decree passed in the declaratory suit, were
questioned either by the Gaon Sabha or the
State, or even a third party. They have been
agitating the issue in proceedings for correction
of record u/s 33/39 and one set of challenge
has finally failed. In these circumstances, to
permit re-agitation of the same issue over
and over again, may not be a violation of
the principle of res judicata stricto sensu,
but it certainly violates the spirit of the
principle. 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. (Para 20)

No case for interference u/Article 226 of the
Constitution with the orders impugned passed
by the Additional Commissioner and the Board
of Revenue is made out. (Para 21)

Writ petition dismissed.

List of Acts
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; U.P.
Z.A. and L.R. Act.

List of Keywords
declaratory
suit,
re-agitaiton,
res-judicata,
finality, consolidation, holdings, rights.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner: Anurag Singh, Govind Krishna,
Kamla Singh
For Respondent: Amit Sinha, Babu Lal Ram,
C.S.C., Dinesh Pathak, Mayuri Mehrotra, Rajan
Upadhyay,
Rakesh
Pathak,
Ramesh
Upadhyaya(Senior Adv.), Shyam Sundar

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1.
When
litigation
ends
with
judgment, and that judgment attains finality
due to its approval by the last Court or a
non-challenge, the losing party must know
that there cannot be a new beginning. This
is the underlying principle of finality in the
procedural laws, that gives effect to one of
the most cardinal of the public policies that
there cannot be a cause suited between
parties ad infinitum. Once decided and
finality attaches, the rights of parties cannot
be permitted to remain in a state of
perpetual uncertainty, with one side or the
other springing up a fresh challenge in
someway, direct or insidious. This is after
all the public policy underlying the doctrine
of res judicata. Unfortunately, a State
Body,
called
the
Nagar
Panchayat,
Akbarpur, seems to be blissfully ignorant
of this elementary principle and this is what
has
led
them
and
some
of
their
predecessors to this wasteful litigation.

2. The dispute in this writ petition
relates to Plot No.597/ 3-12-0 and Plot
No.978/ 3-10-0, admeasuring a total of 7-20, both part of Khata No.560, situate in
Village Adhu Kamalpur, Pargana and
Tehsil Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat.
The said land shall hereinafter be called,
'the land in dispute'. The petitioner, Nagar
Panchayat are the successors-in-interest of
Gaon Sabha/ Village Akbarpur, who had
earlier raised cudgels against the third and
fourth respondents, which includes their
successors and assigns relating to the land
in dispute.

3. The short case of the petitioner
appears to be that the land in dispute was
originally recorded as usar and, therefore,
vested in the Gaon Sabha. The husbands of
respondent Nos.3 and 4, who were
employees of the Revenue Department, had
access to the revenue records. They had
knowledge of the fact that the second copy
of the Chakbandi Jild Bandobast, which is
kept in the District Record Room, Kanpur,
was destroyed by fire. Taking advantage of
the aforesaid contingency, the husbands of
respondent
Nos.3
and
4
did
some
overwriting and altered the khata of the
land in dispute from '560' to '454-Aa' in the
1250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
first copy of the Jild Bandobast. The land
in dispute, according to the petitioner,
belonged to the Gaon Sabha and now the
petitioner, by operation of law upon
establishment of the Nagar Panchayat, have
stepped into the shoes of the Gaon Sabha.

4. It is the petitioner's case that
knowing of the aforesaid forgery in the
revenue record, an application under
Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, to
safeguard the interest of the State, was
made by the proforma respondent, which
was registered as Case No.15 of 2012 on
the file of the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat. The
Tehsildar, Akbarpur was directed to inquire
into the matter, who submitted an inquiry
report dated 18.04.2013 and found the
proforma respondent's stand vindicated.
The Sub-Divisional Officer found that there
was manipulation in the final consolidation
maps etc. and ordered the land in dispute to
be restored to the Gaon Sabha khata, after
expunging the name of respondent Nos.3
and 4, their transferees, respondent Nos.5
and 6, besides issuing directions to register
a First Information Report against all these
persons, vide order dated 01.07.2013.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated
01.07.2013, respondent No.6 preferred a
revision to the Commissioner, Kanpur
Division,
Kanpur.
The
Additional
Commissioner, before whom the revision
came up, finding it to be a case of a second
round of litigation or multiple rounds of it,
vide order dated 23.07.2013, held the
application to expunge the names of
respondent Nos.3 and 4 not maintainable.
He allowed the revision, set aside the order
of the Sub-Divisional Officer and restored
the rights of the third and the fourth
respondents to record, including those of
their transferees, like the sixth respondent
etc.

6. Aggrieved by
the Additional
Commissioner's order dated 23.07.2013,
the
petitioner
persuaded
the
State
Government, on whose behalf the Gaon
Sabha and its successor, the Nagar
Panchayat, held the land in dispute, to
present a revision in their own right to the
Board
of
Revenue.
In
consequence,
Revision No.1911/2016-Kanpur Dehat was
instituted by the State Government before
the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow.
The said revision noticed the course of
proceedings and finding it to be a case of a
concluded lis, hit by finality against the
petitioner,
dismissed
the
State
Government's revision, upholding the order
of the Additional Commissioner. The said
order was passed by the Board on
31.01.2018.

7. Aggrieved, the present writ petition
has been preferred by the Nagar Panchayat,
Akbarpur.

8. Parties having exchanged affidavits,
this petition was admitted to hearing on
29.05.2025, which proceeded forthwith. It
was heard further on 18.07.2025, when
judgment was reserved.

9. Heard Mr. Anurag Singh, learned
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ramesh
Upadhyay,
learned
Senior
Advocate
assisted by Mr. Rajan Upadhyay, learned
Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6,
Mr. Amit Sinha, learned Counsel appearing
for respondent Nos. 4/1, 4/2, 4/3 and 4/4,
Mr. Vidhigya Pathak, Advocate holding
brief of Mr. Rakesh Pathak, learned
Counsel for respondent No. 5 and Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Ray, learned Standing
11 All. Nagar Panchayat Akbarpur Vs. Member Board Of Revenue, U.P. & Ors.
1251
Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos. 1 and 2.

10. Despite the very persuasive and
elaborate submissions advanced on both
sides, which did tempt this Court at times
into scrutinizing the records if at all the
rights of parties recorded for the land in
dispute were forged and fictitious, as the
petitioner alleges. We are of opinion that it
is forbidden territory now to tread. It is not
disputed
that
during
consolidation
proceedings, respondent Nos.3 and 4, to
wit, Smt. Somwati and Smt. Munni Devi,
moved
an
application
before
the
Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A(2)
of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 (for short, 'the Consolidation Act'),
claiming right and title to Plot No.1307
(new Plot No.978) and Plot No.1393 (new
Plot No.597). The Consolidation Officer
rejected the objections vide order dated
07.02.1974.

11. Aggrieved, respondent Nos.3 and
4 preferred an appeal to the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation, which was
numbered as Appeal No. 915, under
Section 11 of the Consolidation Act. The
said
appeal
was
dismissed
by
the
Settlement
Officer
vide
order
dated
11.12.1974.
Both
these
orders
were
impugned by respondent Nos.3 and 4 vide
Revision No.1016, under Section 48 of the
Consolidation Act before the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Kanpur. The
Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed
the revision preferred by respondent Nos.3
and 4 vide judgment and order dated
23.10.1975.

12. In effect, therefore, the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, by his judgment
and order dated 23.10.1975, allowed the
third and the fourth respondents' objections
under Section 9-A(2), setting aside the
orders of the two Authorities below. In
their rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners do
not say that these proceedings were not
taken, but seek to avoid the effect of the
orders of the Consolidation Officer by
saying that these cases were filed between
respondent Nos.3 and 4 and not contested
'by anyone due to want to knowledge'. If by
anyone, the petitioners mean the Gaon
Sabha or the State, we do not think that that
would be acceptable at all.

13. The revision, which was decided
by the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Kanpur vide order 23.10.1975, prominently
had in the array of parties the Gaon Sabha
as the first respondent. It is difficult,
therefore, to accept that proceedings before
the three Consolidation Authorities, ending
in the judgment dated 23.10.1975, which
were title proceedings, were decided
without
information,
notice
to
or
knowledge of the Gaon Sabha. Apparently,
no restoration application was ever filed
before the Consolidation Officers or a writ
petition before this Court, questioning the
order
of
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation dated 23.10.1975 on ground
that the Gaon Sabha was not heard,
amongst others. Rather, it is common
ground between parties that the order dated
23.10.1975 was permitted to become final
without any challenge to it of any kind ever
being raised. It is absolutely impossible in
these circumstances to say that the order of
the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated
23.10.1975, passed in title proceedings,
would not bind the Gaon Sabha or its
successor, the petitioner-Nagar Panchayat.

14. The fifth respondent here, one of
the transferees from respondent Nos.3 and
4,
the
Committee
of
Management,
Akbarpur Degree College, filed Suit
1252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No.39/85/89, under Section 229-B of the
U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act against the Gaon
Sabha and the State, including respondent
Nos.3 and 4. The said suit was decreed on
the basis of a compromise vide order dated
11.01.1990. A decree was passed, in terms
of which Plot No.978, belonging to
respondent No.3, Smt. Munni Devi, was
given to the petitioner's predecessor-in-title,
the Gaon Sabha Adhu Kamalpur, Pargana
and Tehsil Akbarpur, District Kanpur
Dehat, through its Pradhan, whereas Plot
No.979, which was recorded in the
petitioner's predecessor's khata, was given
to Smt. Munni Devi. This assertion,
together with relevant record, is there in
paragraph No.3-G of the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of respondent No.5. In the
rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner,
there is a bald denial, saying that paragraph
Nos.3-F and 3-G are denied. The denial is
evasive and there is no reason to disbelieve
the fifth respondent's well pleaded case on
this score, backed as it is, by necessary
evidence, annexed as Annexure Nos. CA-2
to CA-4.

15. The record then shows that one
Balwan
moved
an
application
dated
25.06.1998 under Section 33/39 of the
Land Revenue Act, seeking to expunge the
name of Somwati and Munni Devi,
respondent Nos.3 and 4, respectively, from
the land in dispute, with a direction to
record these in the State's khata. The
aforesaid application was allowed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Akbarpur vide
order dated 22.02.1999, directing the
names of respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be
expunged and the land in dispute entered in
the Gaon Sabha khata as usar.

16.
Aggrieved
by
this
order,
respondent Nos.3 and 4 preferred a revision
to the Commissioner, Kanpur Division,
Kanpur, being Revision No.54 of 1999.
This
revision
came
up
before
the
Additional Commissioner, who vide his
judgment and order dated 30.06.1999,
allowed the revision and set aside the
SDO's order dated 22.02.1999. A recall
application was filed by the State and the
Gaon Sabha against this order to the
Additional
Commissioner,
which
was
rejected vide order dated 27.06.2011.

17. These two orders dated 30.06.1999
and 27.06.2011 have been specifically
asserted by respondent No.5 in paragraph
No.3-K of their counter affidavit to have
become final on account of non-challenge.
In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the
petitioner, all that is said is that the orders
dated 30.06.1999 and 27.06.2011 were part
of technicalities. The conclusion, therefore,
is that the finality of orders dated
30.06.1999 and 27.06.2011 is admitted to
the petitioner. After the mutation matter
attained finality, the present application,
reopening
the
entire
dispute,
was
apparently made in the name of one Ram
Naresh Singh, arrayed as respondent No.7.
The fifth respondent calls him an imposter
and a non-existent person. We do not wish
to go into that question, because Ram
Naresh Singh has indeed filed a counter
affidavit before this Court.

18. What is material is that even if
Ram Naresh Singh is a real person, who
has made the present application dated
11.06.2012 under Section 33/39 to expunge
the name of respondent Nos.3 and 4, it
would
make
little
difference.
The
application made by Ram Naresh Singh
was registered on 11.06.2012, that is to say,
the date it was presented. Respondent
Nos.5 and 6, who are one and the same
substantially, filed Revision No.103 of
2013 before the Commissioner, Kanpur
11 All. Nagar Panchayat Akbarpur Vs. Member Board Of Revenue, U.P. & Ors.
1253
Division, Kanpur, challenging the very
registration of a second application under
Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, the
earlier application having been rejected.
Thus, respondent Nos.5 and 6 challenged
the order dated 11.06.2012 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, entertaining and
registering the application under Section
33/39, last mentioned. The Commissioner
heard this revision and allowed it vide order
dated 07.03.2013, setting aside the order
dated
11.06.2012,
registering
the
application, albeit with a remand to the
SDO to pass a fresh order, bearing in mind
the
remarks
in
the
Additional
Commissioner's judgment. Those remarks
were to the following effect:

"अतः प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में मवद्वान अमधवक्ता द्वारा
प्रस्तुत मकये गये मवमधक दृष्टोन्तो के अनुसार पुनः धारा-33/39 की
कायटवाही प्रचमलत नहीं की जा सकती। इसके अमतररक्त वादग्रस्त
भूमम के सम्बन्ध में जमीदारी मवनाश अमधमनयम की धारा-229बी
के अन्तगटत मी मदनाांक 11-01-1990 को मनणटय पाररत मकया
जा चुका है एवां मदनाांक 27-06-2011 को इस न्यायालय द्वारा
बाजवे नम्बर का प्राथटना पत्र भी मनरस्त कर मदया गया है तथा मद्वतीय
अपील सांख्या - 35 / 2002 में मा0 उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा
अमन्तम मनणटय मलया जा चुका है, ऐसी दशा में अवर न्यायालय द्वारा
पाररत आदेश मदनाांक 11-06-2012 मनरस्त मकये जाने योग्य है।"

 (emphasis by Court)

19. Notwithstanding the remarks of
the Revisional Court, the holding that the
application would not maintainable, taking
advantage of the order of remand passed by
the Additional Commissioner and ignoring
the remarks in the body of the judgment
and order dated 07.03.2013 passed in
Revision No.103 of 2013, the SDO once
again passed the order dated 01.07.2013,
expunging the name of respondent Nos.3 to
5 and directing the Gaon Sabha's name to
be recorded. It is this order, which has been
set aside in revision by the Additional
Commissioner vide order 23.07.2013 and
affirmed by the Board of Revenue vide
order dated 31.01.2018.

20. Upon a wholesome consideration
of the matter, we are of opinion that though
at different stages of proceedings, different
parties have come forward to question the
rights of respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be
recorded in the land in dispute, the rights of
these respondents have been sufficiently
tested in proceedings under Section 9-A(2)
of the Consolidation Act, a declaratory suit
and earlier proceedings for correction under
Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act,
with the event being in favour of these
respondents
consistently.
Respondent
Nos.3 and 4 and their transferees, for the
said reason, cannot be exposed to an
incessant peril of challenge to their rights
by third parties, and may be even the State,
agitating the same issues all over again.
The State and the Gaon Sabha were parties
to the proceedings under the Consolidation
Act as also the suit under Section 229-B. In
fact, the Gaon Sabha entered into a
compromise with respondent Nos.3 and 4
for exchange of one of the plots,
comprising the suit land. The petitioners
are after all successors of the Gaon Sabha
and are bound by their acts, rights and
liabilities. At no point of time, the orders
passed
by
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation dated 23.10.1975 or the
decree passed in the declaratory suit, were
questioned either by the Gaon Sabha or the
State, or even a third party. They have been
agitating the issue in proceedings for
correction of record under Section 33/39
and one set of challenge has finally failed.
In these circumstances, to permit reagitation of the same issue over and over
again, may not be a violation of the
principle of res judicata stricto sensu, but it
certainly violates the spirit of the principle.
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