Ram Surat & ors v. Kali Prasad & ors)

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Ayra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4/Gram Sabha concerned, Sri Shyam Singh, Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No. 5/Nagar Palika Parishad concerned in the Court today, which is taken on record, and Sri Ravi Dwivedi, Advocate alongwith Ms. Varsha Rani & Sri Abhishek Chaudhary, Advocates, who have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 11 to 20 in the Court today, which is also taken on record. By means of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following main relief(s) :- "i. To set aside the impugned order dated 13.06.2024 in case No. 219/2022 [(Computerized case No. C202208000000219) (Pramod Kumar Singh Va. Ram Lav & ors)] passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration-II), Devipatan Mandal, District Gonda u/s 333 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 as well as order dated 25.01.2022 in case No. RST/04643/2020 [(Computerized case No. T202008300504643) (Ram Surat & ors Vs. Kali Prasad & ors)] passed by Sub - Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil - Karnailganj, Gonda u/s 229(B) of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950. (Contained as Annexures No. 1 & 2). ii. Issue a order or direction the thereby commanding the opposite party No. 3 to implead all the petitioners as necessary opposite parties in case No. 93/T20200830050 (Ram Surat & ors Vs. Kali Prasad & ors) pending before him, in the interest of justice." Vide impugned order dated 25.01.2022 passed in Case No. RST/04643/2020, Computerized Case No. T202008300504643 (Ram Surat and others vs. Kali Prasad and others), which was instituted wayback in the year 2008 in terms of Section 229 (B) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "Act of 1950"), the respondent No. 3/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil- Karnailganj, District- Gonda (in short "Magistrate") rejected the application of the petitioners seeking impleadment in the said case as opposite parties/defendants being the purchasers of the property in issue. The relevant portion of the order dated 25.01.2022 on reproduction reads as under:- " ममनन उभयपकक कन वकयद गयद। धजससन सपष हम वक शशमतश लशलदवतश पतनश रदजननद पसदद ददरद वरर -2003 शशमतश आधलयद बनगम पतनश हदजश शबबशर ददरद वरर-2009 ववददन अधधवकदगण कन तकर कक ससनद तथद पदथरनद पतक मम उवलधखत तथयक कद ववधधवतपररशशलन मम वशवसरन पसत बमहद सन व मम शशमतश रदजपतश बनवद ससयरलदल सन व अबदसल कलदम पसत अबदसल सलदम ददरद-2011 मम शशमतश शयदमद दनवश पतनश ववजय बहददसर धससह व ससरज धससह व वशवशसकर धससह पसतगण रदजननद धससह सन व पमकद कस मदर पसत रदज नरदयन ददरद वरर- 2012 मम कदलश पसदद पसत हररसरन व बमजनतश पतनश हररसरन सन तथद मदससम अलश पसत समशउलद ददरद वरर-2018 मम सवदमश ववजय बहददसर व कनहई लदल सन बमनदमद धलयद गयद हम। इस पकदर सपष हम उक पदथरनद पत पसतसतकतदरओ ददरद कमशश लगभग-18 वरर, 12 वरर, 10 वरर, 9 वरर एसव 03 वरर पसवर बमनदमद धलयद गयद हम। वकनतस इसकन पसवर इन वयवकयक ददरद ककई पदथरनद पत नहह पसतसत वकयद गयद। पशनगत कदफफ समय सन बहस मम चल रहद हम, बहस कन सतर सन पदथरनद पत कर मदत वदद कक लममबत करनन कद पयदस वकयद गयद हम। इस पकदर पककदर बनदयन जदनन कफ अनसमवत पर वदद कद वनसतदरण हक हश नहह सकतद हम। मद० उचच नयदयदलय कन शशघ वनसतदरण कन वनदरश भश वदए गयन हम। इसकन अवतररक उक पदथरनद पत कतदरओ ददरद धजन वयवकयक सन बमनदमद धलयद गयद हम, वहश आदनश इन पर भश लदगस हकगद, जकउनकन ववकन तद ददरद पसतसत सदकयएवस कथन सन वभन हक। ऐसश मसथवत मम पककदर बनदयन जदनन कद ककई आवचतय नहह बनतद हम। पदथरनद पत वनरसत वकयन जदनन यकगय हम। इनकन ददरद वदद मम ककई ऐसद सदकय नहह पसतसत वकयद जद सकतद हम, वह अथवद उनकन वदररसदन वदद मम पककदर हम, ववकन तद पर लदगस हकगद, जक आदनश इनकन आदनश शश पमकद कस मदर धससह पसत रदम नरदयन व शशमतश आधलयद बनगम पतनश हदजश शबबशर अहमद व शशमतश लशलदवतश पतनश रदजननद पसदद व अबदसल कलदम पसत अबदसल सलदम एवस मदससम अलश पसत सफफ उलद ददरद पककदर बनदयन जदनन हनतस पसतसत पदथरनद पत बलहशन हकनन कन कदरण वनरसत वकयन जदतन हम। पतदवलश धलधखत बहस हनतस वदनदसक: 27.01.2022 कक पनश हक। पककदर आवशयक रप वनयत वतधथ पर अप बहस पसतसत कर दम, अनयथद पतदवलश पर उपलबध सदकय कन आधदर पर वनसतदरण कर वदयद जदयनगद।" Challenging the order dated 25.01.2022, the aggrieved party approached the respondent No. 2/Additional Commissioner (Administration-II), Devi Patan Mandal, District- Gonda (in short "Revisional Authority") by means of Revision No. 219 of 2022, Computerized Case No. C202208000000219 (Pramod Kumar Singh vs. Ram Lav and others) in terms of Section 333 of the Act of 1950, whereupon, the respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 13.06.2024 dismissed the said revision and affirmed the order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the Magistrate. The relevant portion of the order dated 13.06.2024 on reproduction reads as under:- मम सपष वकयद हम वक शशमतश लशलदवतश पतनश रदजननद पसदद ददरद वरर 2003 " ववददन अधधवकद कफ तकर पसणर बहस ससनश गयश तथद अवर नयदयदलय एवस इस नयदयदलय कफ मनरन ददरद उभयपक कन पतदवलश मम ददधखल अवभलनखख कद ववधधवत अवलककन वकयद गयद। अवर नयदयदलय नन अपनन उक आदनश वदनदसवकत 25.01.2022 मम वशवसरन पसत बमहद सन व शशमतश आधलयद बनगम पतनश हदजश शबबशर ददरद वरर 2009 मम शशमतश रदजपतश बनवद ससयरलदल सन व अबदसल कलदम पसत अबदसल सलदम ददरद 2011 मम शशमतश शयदमद दनवश पतनश ववजय बहददसर धससह व ससरज धससह व वशवशसकर धससह पसतगण रदजननद धससह सन व पमकद कस मदर पसत रदज नरदयन ददरद वरर-2012 मम कदलश पसदद पसत हररसरन व बमजनतश पतनश हररसरन सन तथद मदससम अलश पसत समशउलद ददरद वरर 2018 मम सवदमश ववजय बहददसर व कनहई लदल सन बमनदमद धलयद गयद हम। इस पकदर सपष हम उकद पदथरनद पत पसतसतकतदरओ ददरद कमशश लगभग 18 वरर, 12 वरर, 10 वरर, 9 वरर पसवर बमनदमद धलयद गयद हम। वकनतस इसकन पसवर इन वयवकयक ददरद ककई पदथरनद पत नहह पसतसत वकयद गयद। पशनगत वदद कदफफ समय सन बहस मम चल रहद हम तथद बहस कन सतर सन पदथरनद पत दनकर मदत वदद कक लममबत करनन कद पयदस वकयद गयद हम। इस पकदर पककदर बनदयन जदनन कफ अनसमवत पर वदद कद वनसतदरण हक हश नहह सकतद हम। मद० उचच नयदयदलय कन शशघ वनसतदरण कन वनदरश भश वदए गयन हम। इसकन अवतररक उक पदथरनद पत कतदरओ ददरद धजन वयवकयक सन बमनदमद धलयद गयद हम, वहश आदनश इन पर भश लदगस हकगद, ववकन तद ददरद पसतसत सदकय एवस कथन सन वभन हक। ऐसश मसथवत मम पककदर बनदयन जदनन कद ककई आवचतय नहह बनतद हम। उपरकक आधदर पर अवर नयदयदलय नन वनगरदनशकतदरगण ददरद पसतसत पककदर पदथरनद पत वनरसत वकयद गयद हम। चस चवक मद० उचच नयदयदलय ददरद अवर नयदयदलय मम लममबत उक वदद कक शशघ वनसतदररत वकयन जदनन कद वनदरश वदयद गयद हम, जक उभयपक पर पभदवश हह तथद आदनशदनससदर वदद कद वनसतदरण अवर नयदयदलय ददरद वकयद जदनद अपनवकत हम। इस पकदर अवर नयदयदलय ददरद पशनगत आदनश ससनवदई कन उपरदनत वववनवचत ढसग सन पदररत वकयद गयद हम। इनकन ददरद वदद मम ककई ऐसद सदकय नहह पसतसत वकयद जद हम, वह अथवद उनकन वदररसदन वदद मम पककदर हम, ववकन तद पर लदगस हकगद, जक आदनश इनकन वरर एवस 03 जक उनकन उपरकक वववनचनद कन आधदर पर मह इस वनषकरर पर पहह यकगय हम तथद अवर नयदयदलय ददरद पदररत आदनश वदनदसक 22.02.2018 हम। चचतद हह च वक पशनगत वनगरदनश बलहशन हम तथद वनरसत वकयन जदनन मम हसतकनप कफ आवशयकतद पतशत नहह हकतश अतश वनगरदनश वनरसत कफ जदतश हम। वनगरदनश मम यवद ककई सथगनददनश पदररत हक तक उसन वदपस धलयद जदतद हम। आदनश कफ पवत सवहत अवर नयदयदलय कफ पतदवलश वदपस भनजश जदय। इस नयदयदलय कफ पतदवलश बदद आवशयक कदयरवदहश ददधखल दफतर कफ जदय।" Upon due consideration of the facts of the case, as appears from the impugned orders dated 25.01.2022 and 13.06.2024 as well as from the material available on record placed before this Court by the parties' counsel, and Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short "Act of 1882") as well as other settled propositions and various pronouncements on the subject including the recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H. Anjanappa and others vs. A. Prabhakar and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 183, this Court finds that no interference is required in the impugned orders dated 25.01.2022 and 13.06.2024. It is for the following facts/reasons:- (i) Suit in which the petitioners preferred the application for impleadment was instituted on 27.11.2008, as appears from the copy of the plaint annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the present petition. (ii) The suit aforesaid was filed under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950 for declaration of rights over the land of Gata No(s). 782/0.770, 783/0.0730, 532/0.0810, 619/0.1380, 788/0.0690, 789/0.0280 and 781Sa/0.0810, situated in Village- Karnailganj, Pargana- Gwarich, Tehsil- Karnailganj, District- Gonda. (iii) During the pendency of the suit aforesaid, the part(s) of suit property were purchased by:- (a) petitioner No. 1/Pramod Kumar Singh through registered sale deed dated 15.02.2012 executed by Kali Prasad (defendant No. 1 in the suit), (b) petitioner No. 2/Alia Begum through registered sale deed dated 30.06.2009, executed by Smt. Rajpati (defendant No. 6 in the suit), (c) petitioner No. 3/Lilawati through registered sale deed dated 10.02.2023 executed by Shiv Saran (husband of defendant No. 5/Smt. Sona) s/o Brhama, died prior to filing of suit and whose successors namely Kali Prasad, Vikas, Girdhari, Smt. Kalawati and Smt. Sona were impleaded as defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in suit, (d) petitioner No. 4/Abdul Kalam through registered sale deed dated 21.12.2011 executed by son(s) of Vijay Bahadur Singh (defendant No. 15 in the suit) namely Suraj Singh and Shiv Shankar Singh through guardian/mother namely Smt. Shyama Devi w/o Vijay Bahadur Singh and (e) petitioner No. 5/Masum Ali through registered sale deed dated 31.07.2018, executed by Vijay Bahadur Singh (defendant No. 15 in the suit). (iv) The aforesaid is evident from paragraphs 5 to 9 of the instant petition, which are reproduced hereinunder, and copy of the plaint and also the sale deed(s) on record. "5.That the petitioner No.1 purchased 900 square foot land in Gata No. 782 from its owner Kali Prasad s/o Hari Sharan through a registered sale deed dated 15.02.2012. The true photocopy/ type copy of the sale deed dated 15.02.2012, is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this petition.

6. That the petitioner No.2 purchased the land in Gata No. 523/0.05 Dismil, 529/0.5 Dismil, 531/0.23 Dismil, 540/0.25 Dismil, 541/0.10 Dismil, 542/0.08 Dismil Jumla 8 Kita/1.02 Dismil (8 Kita Rakba 1 Acre 2 Dismil) from its owner Smt Rajpati w/o Late Surya Lal through a registered sale deed dated 30.06.2009. The true photocopy/ type copy of the sale deed dated 30.06.2009, is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this petition.

7. That the petitioner No. 3 purchased 1320 square foot land in Gata No. 782 from its owner Shiv Sharan s/o Brahma through a registered sale deed dated 10.02.2003. The true photocopy/ type copy of the sale deed dated 10.02.2023, is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this petition.

8. That the petitioner No.4 purchased 1260 square foot land in Gata No. 782 from its owner Suraj Singh (Minor) & Shiv Shankar Singh (Minor) s/o Rajendra Singh through guardian Shyama Devi w/o Vijay Bahadur Singh s/o Hari Sharan through a registered sale deed dated 21.12.2011. The true photocopy/ type copy of the sale deed dated 21.12.2011, is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this petition.

9. That the petitioner No.5 purchased 0.048/1/25 square hec. land in Gata No. 788/0.069 hec. & 789/0.028 hec. from its owner Vijay Bahadur s/o Kandhai Lal through a registered sale deed dated 31.07.2018. The true photocopy/ type copy of the sale deed dated 31.07.2018, is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this petition." (v) From the aforesaid, it appears that entire suit property has not been sold/transferred and concerned parties are already on record as defendants, who could effectively contest/defend the suit for declaration of title in issue in which burden lies on the plaintiff(s) to make out and establish a clear case for granting such declaration as the principle is that 'plaintiff can succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of defence'. (vi) The suit is at the stage of arguments. (vii) The application for impleadment, to the view of this Court, was preferred only with the intention to delay the trial/disposal of suit, pending since 27.11.2008, which has been expedited by this Court. (viii) In the application for impleadment, the date of knowledge of the suit in issue has not been indicated, which also indicates that the petitioners were aware about the pendency of the suit and at the stage of conclusion of trial, this application was moved with oblique motive. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Cost made easy. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Arun/-

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Ayra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4/Gram Sabha concerned, Sri Shyam Singh, Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No. 5/Nagar Palika Parishad concerned in the Court today, which is taken on record, and Sri Ravi Dwivedi, Advocate alongwith Ms. Varsha Rani & Sri Abhishek Chaudhary, Advocates, who have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 11 to 20 in the Court today, which is also taken on record. By means of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following main relief(s) :- "i. To set aside the impugned order dated 13.06.2024 in case No. 219/2022 [(Computerized case No. C202208000000219) (Pramod Kumar Singh Va. Ram Lav & ors)] passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration-II), Devipatan Mandal, District Gonda u/s 333 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 as well as order dated 25.01.2022 in case No. RST/04643/2020 [(Computerized case No. T202008300504643) (Ram Surat & ors Vs. Kali Prasad & ors)] passed by Sub - Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil - Karnailganj, Gonda u/s 229(B) of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950. (Contained as Annexures No. 1 & 2). ii. Issue a order or direction the thereby commanding the opposite party No. 3 to implead all the petitioners as necessary opposite parties in case No. 93/T20200830050 (Ram Surat & ors Vs. Kali Prasad & ors) pending before him, in the interest of justice." Vide impugned order dated 25.01.2022 passed in Case No. RST/04643/2020, Computerized Case No. T202008300504643 (Ram Surat and others vs. Kali Prasad and others), which was instituted wayback in the year 2008 in terms of Section 229 (B) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "Act of 1950"), the respondent No. 3/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil- Karnailganj, District- Gonda (in short "Magistrate") rejected the application of the petitioners seeking impleadment in the said case as opposite parties/defendants being the purchasers of the property in issue. The relevant portion of the order dated 25.01.2022 on reproduction reads as under:- " ममनन उभयपकक कन वकयद गयद। धजससन सपष हम वक शशमतश लशलदवतश पतनश रदजननद पसदद ददरद वरर -2003 शशमतश आधलयद बनगम पतनश हदजश शबबशर ददरद वरर-2009 ववददन अधधवकदगण कन तकर कक ससनद तथद पदथरनद पतक मम उवलधखत तथयक कद ववधधवतपररशशलन मम वशवसरन पसत बमहद सन व मम शशमतश रदजपतश बनवद ससयरलदल सन व अबदसल कलदम पसत अबदसल सलदम ददरद-2011 मम शशमतश शयदमद दनवश पतनश ववजय बहददसर धससह व ससरज धससह व वशवशसकर धससह पसतगण रदजननद धससह सन व पमकद कस मदर पसत रदज नरदयन ददरद वरर- 2012 मम कदलश पसदद पसत हररसरन व बमजनतश पतनश हररसरन सन तथद मदससम अलश पसत समशउलद ददरद वरर-2018 मम सवदमश ववजय बहददसर व कनहई लदल सन बमनदमद धलयद गयद हम। इस पकदर सपष हम उक पदथरनद पत पसतसतकतदरओ ददरद कमशश लगभग-18 वरर, 12 वरर, 10 वरर, 9 वरर एसव 03 वरर पसवर बमनदमद धलयद गयद हम। वकनतस इसकन पसवर इन वयवकयक ददरद ककई पदथरनद पत नहह पसतसत वकयद गयद। पशनगत कदफफ समय सन बहस मम चल रहद हम, बहस कन सतर सन पदथरनद पत कर मदत वदद कक लममबत करनन कद पयदस वकयद गयद हम। इस पकदर पककदर बनदयन जदनन कफ अनसमवत पर वदद कद वनसतदरण हक हश नहह सकतद हम। मद० उचच नयदयदलय कन शशघ वनसतदरण कन वनदरश भश वदए गयन हम। इसकन अवतररक उक पदथरनद पत कतदरओ ददरद धजन वयवकयक सन बमनदमद धलयद गयद हम, वहश आदनश इन पर भश लदगस हकगद, जकउनकन ववकन तद ददरद पसतसत सदकयएवस कथन सन वभन हक। ऐसश मसथवत मम पककदर बनदयन जदनन कद ककई आवचतय नहह बनतद हम। पदथरनद पत वनरसत वकयन जदनन यकगय हम। इनकन ददरद वदद मम ककई ऐसद सदकय नहह पसतसत वकयद जद सकतद हम, वह अथवद उनकन वदररसदन वदद मम पककदर हम, ववकन तद पर लदगस हकगद, जक आदनश इनकन आदनश शश पमकद कस मदर धससह पसत रदम नरदयन व शशमतश आधलयद बनगम पतनश हदजश शबबशर अहमद व शशमतश लशलदवतश पतनश रदजननद पसदद व अबदसल कलदम पसत अबदसल सलदम एवस मदससम अलश पसत सफफ उलद ददरद पककदर बनदयन जदनन हनतस पसतसत पदथरनद पत बलहशन हकनन कन कदरण वनरसत वकयन जदतन हम। पतदवलश धलधखत बहस हनतस वदनदसक: 27.01.2022 कक पनश हक। पककदर आवशयक रप वनयत वतधथ पर अप बहस पसतसत कर दम, अनयथद पतदवलश पर उपलबध सदकय कन आधदर पर वनसतदरण कर वदयद जदयनगद।" Challenging the order dated 25.01.2022, the aggrieved party approached the respondent No. 2/Additional Commissioner (Administration-II), Devi Patan Mandal, District- Gonda (in short "Revisional Authority") by means of Revision No. 219 of 2022, Computerized Case No. C202208000000219 (Pramod Kumar Singh vs. Ram Lav and others) in terms of Section 333 of the Act of 1950, whereupon, the respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 13.06.2024 dismissed the said revision and affirmed the order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the Magistrate. The relevant portion of the order dated 13.06.2024 on reproduction reads as under:- मम सपष वकयद हम वक शशमतश लशलदवतश पतनश रदजननद पसदद ददरद वरर 2003 " ववददन अधधवकद कफ तकर पसणर बहस ससनश गयश तथद अवर नयदयदलय एवस इस नयदयदलय कफ मनरन ददरद उभयपक कन पतदवलश मम ददधखल अवभलनखख कद ववधधवत अवलककन वकयद गयद। अवर नयदयदलय नन अपनन उक आदनश वदनदसवकत 25.01.2022 मम वशवसरन पसत बमहद सन व शशमतश आधलयद बनगम पतनश हदजश शबबशर ददरद वरर 2009 मम शशमतश रदजपतश बनवद ससयरलदल सन व अबदसल कलदम पसत अबदसल सलदम ददरद 2011 मम शशमतश शयदमद दनवश पतनश ववजय बहददसर धससह व ससरज धससह व वशवशसकर धससह पसतगण रदजननद धससह सन व पमकद कस मदर पसत रदज नरदयन ददरद वरर-2012 मम कदलश पसदद पसत हररसरन व बमजनतश पतनश हररसरन सन तथद मदससम अलश पसत समशउलद ददरद वरर 2018 मम सवदमश ववजय बहददसर व कनहई लदल सन बमनदमद धलयद गयद हम। इस पकदर सपष हम उकद पदथरनद पत पसतसतकतदरओ ददरद कमशश लगभग 18 वरर, 12 वरर, 10 वरर, 9 वरर पसवर बमनदमद धलयद गयद हम। वकनतस इसकन पसवर इन वयवकयक ददरद ककई पदथरनद पत नहह पसतसत वकयद गयद। पशनगत वदद कदफफ समय सन बहस मम चल रहद हम तथद बहस कन सतर सन पदथरनद पत दनकर मदत वदद कक लममबत करनन कद पयदस वकयद गयद हम। इस पकदर पककदर बनदयन जदनन कफ अनसमवत पर वदद कद वनसतदरण हक हश नहह सकतद हम। मद० उचच नयदयदलय कन शशघ वनसतदरण कन वनदरश भश वदए गयन हम। इसकन अवतररक उक पदथरनद पत कतदरओ ददरद धजन वयवकयक सन बमनदमद धलयद गयद हम, वहश आदनश इन पर भश लदगस हकगद, ववकन तद ददरद पसतसत सदकय एवस कथन सन वभन हक। ऐसश मसथवत मम पककदर बनदयन जदनन कद ककई आवचतय नहह बनतद हम। उपरकक आधदर पर अवर नयदयदलय नन वनगरदनशकतदरगण ददरद पसतसत पककदर पदथरनद पत वनरसत वकयद गयद हम। चस चवक मद० उचच नयदयदलय ददरद अवर नयदयदलय मम लममबत उक वदद कक शशघ वनसतदररत वकयन जदनन कद वनदरश वदयद गयद हम, जक उभयपक पर पभदवश हह तथद आदनशदनससदर वदद कद वनसतदरण अवर नयदयदलय ददरद वकयद जदनद अपनवकत हम। इस पकदर अवर नयदयदलय ददरद पशनगत आदनश ससनवदई कन उपरदनत वववनवचत ढसग सन पदररत वकयद गयद हम। इनकन ददरद वदद मम ककई ऐसद सदकय नहह पसतसत वकयद जद हम, वह अथवद उनकन वदररसदन वदद मम पककदर हम, ववकन तद पर लदगस हकगद, जक आदनश इनकन वरर एवस 03 जक उनकन उपरकक वववनचनद कन आधदर पर मह इस वनषकरर पर पहह यकगय हम तथद अवर नयदयदलय ददरद पदररत आदनश वदनदसक 22.02.2018 हम। चचतद हह च वक पशनगत वनगरदनश बलहशन हम तथद वनरसत वकयन जदनन मम हसतकनप कफ आवशयकतद पतशत नहह हकतश अतश वनगरदनश वनरसत कफ जदतश हम। वनगरदनश मम यवद ककई सथगनददनश पदररत हक तक उसन वदपस धलयद जदतद हम। आदनश कफ पवत सवहत अवर नयदयदलय कफ पतदवलश वदपस भनजश जदय। इस नयदयदलय कफ पतदवलश बदद आवशयक कदयरवदहश ददधखल दफतर कफ जदय।" Upon due consideration of the facts of the case, as appears from the impugned orders dated 25.01.2022 and 13.06.2024 as well as from the material available on record placed before this Court by the parties' counsel, and Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short "Act of 1882") as well as other settled propositions and various pronouncements on the subject including the recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H. Anjanappa and others vs. A. Prabhakar and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 183, this Court finds that no interference is required in the impugned orders dated 25.01.2022 and 13.06.2024. It is for the following facts/reasons:- (i) Suit in which the petitioners preferred the application for impleadment was instituted on 27.11.2008, as appears from the copy of the plaint annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the present petition. (ii) The suit aforesaid was filed under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950 for declaration of rights over the land of Gata No(s). 782/0.770, 783/0.0730, 532/0.0810, 619/0.1380, 788/0.0690, 789/0.0280 and 781Sa/0.0810, situated in Village- Karnailganj, Pargana- Gwarich, Tehsil- Karnailganj, District- Gonda. (iii) During the pendency of the suit aforesaid, the part(s) of suit property were purchased by:- (a) petitioner No. 1/Pramod Kumar Singh through registered sale deed dated 15.02.2012 executed by Kali Prasad (defendant No. 1 in the suit), (b) petitioner No. 2/Alia Begum through registered sale deed dated 30.06.2009, executed by Smt. Rajpati (defendant No. 6 in the suit), (c) petitioner No. 3/Lilawati through registered sale deed dated 10.02.2023 executed by Shiv Saran (husband of defendant No. 5/Smt. Sona) s/o Brhama, died prior to filing of suit and whose successors namely Kali Prasad, Vikas, Girdhari, Smt. Kalawati and Smt. Sona were impleaded as defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in suit, (d) petitioner No. 4/Abdul Kalam through registered sale deed dated 21.12.2011 executed by son(s) of Vijay Bahadur Singh (defendant No. 15 in the suit) namely Suraj Singh and Shiv Shankar Singh through guardian/mother namely Smt. Shyama Devi w/o Vijay Bahadur Singh and (e) petitioner No. 5/Masum Ali through registered sale deed dated 31.07.2018, executed by Vijay Bahadur Singh (defendant No. 15 in the suit). (iv) The aforesaid is evident from paragraphs 5 to 9 of the instant petition, which are reproduced hereinunder, and copy of the plaint and also the sale deed(s) on record. "5.That the petitioner No.1 purchased 900 square foot land in Gata No. 782 from its owner Kali Prasad s/o Hari Sharan through a registered sale deed dated 15.02.2012. The true photocopy/ type copy of the sale deed dated 15.02.2012, is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this petition.

6. That the petitioner No.2 purchased the land in Gata No. 523/0.05 Dismil, 529/0.5 Dismil, 531/0.23 Dismil, 540/0.25 Dismil, 541/0.10 Dismil, 542/0.08 Dismil Jumla 8 Kita/1.02 Dismil (8 Kita Rakba 1 Acre 2 Dismil) from its owner Smt Rajpati w/o Late Surya Lal through a registered sale deed dated 30.06.2009. The true photocopy/ type copy of the sale deed dated 30.06.2009, is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this petition.

7. That the petitioner No. 3 purchased 1320 square foot land in Gata No. 782 from its owner Shiv Sharan s/o Brahma through a registered sale deed dated 10.02.2003. The true photocopy/ type copy of the sale deed dated 10.02.2023, is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this petition.

8. That the petitioner No.4 purchased 1260 square foot land in Gata No. 782 from its owner Suraj Singh (Minor) & Shiv Shankar Singh (Minor) s/o Rajendra Singh through guardian Shyama Devi w/o Vijay Bahadur Singh s/o Hari Sharan through a registered sale deed dated 21.12.2011. The true photocopy/ type copy of the sale deed dated 21.12.2011, is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this petition.

9. That the petitioner No.5 purchased 0.048/1/25 square hec. land in Gata No. 788/0.069 hec. & 789/0.028 hec. from its owner Vijay Bahadur s/o Kandhai Lal through a registered sale deed dated 31.07.2018. The true photocopy/ type copy of the sale deed dated 31.07.2018, is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this petition." (v) From the aforesaid, it appears that entire suit property has not been sold/transferred and concerned parties are already on record as defendants, who could effectively contest/defend the suit for declaration of title in issue in which burden lies on the plaintiff(s) to make out and establish a clear case for granting such declaration as the principle is that 'plaintiff can succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of defence'. (vi) The suit is at the stage of arguments. (vii) The application for impleadment, to the view of this Court, was preferred only with the intention to delay the trial/disposal of suit, pending since 27.11.2008, which has been expedited by this Court. (viii) In the application for impleadment, the date of knowledge of the suit in issue has not been indicated, which also indicates that the petitioners were aware about the pendency of the suit and at the stage of conclusion of trial, this application was moved with oblique motive. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Cost made easy. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Arun/-