Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11963 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4651 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Prasad And 5 Others Respondent :- Santram And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Nirmit Srivastava,Aakchad Nath,Rama Shanker Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Vimal Kishore Verma,Harsh Verma Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vimal Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 07.05.2024 whereby the impleadment application filed by the petitioners was rejected as well as the order dated 05.09.2024 whereby the revision was dismissed. 4. The facts in brief are that a suit was filed against original two defendants alleging that the defendant no. 1 had sold the property in favour of the defendant no. 2 illegally, specific relief for quashing of the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant no. 2 was sought as is evident from the plaint. Subsequently, it appears that the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 2 died and no substitution was filed and an application was filed for deleting the names of the defendant no. 1 and 2, which appears to have been allowed. It also bears from the record that the defendant no. 3 was impleaded by moving an application. 5. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are the legal heirs of original defendant no. 2 and as the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant no. 2, which has devolved upon the petitioner as a legal heir is under question, he was a necessary and proper party in the suit. The trial Court rejected the said application mainly holding that if the petitioner has not been impleaded, the decree as sought would not be applicable on him. The revisional Court rejected the revision holding that the plaintiff was dominus litus. 6. The counsel for the petitioners further argues that as the sale deed in question is the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant no. 2 from whom the property has devolved upon the petitioner, he was a necessary and a proper party. It is further argued that the defendant no. 2, who is the vendee of the sale deed was impleaded and thus, the petitioner on whom the rights have devolved was also a necessary and proper party. He further argues that a decree in which the relief of quashing of the sale deed is sought, which has vested upon the petitioner, the rights of the petitioner would be adversely effected in case he is not allowed to be impleaded. 7. The counsel for the respondents supports the order by arguing that the Courts below have rightly recorded that as the petitioner has not been impleaded, he would not be effected by the decree and thus the two impugned orders are justified. 8. In view of the contentions raised what transpires is that the defendant no. 2, during his life time had sold the property purchased by him to a third person, once he sold the property, no right is vested in favour of the petitioner as legal heir upon the sold property. This aspect was considered by the trial Court and the trial Court rejected the application on the ground that after the execution of the sale deed by the defendant no. 2 during his life time and there being no relief claimed against the petitioner, the application for impleadment was without any valid ground. It was further observed that in any case, the petitioner would not be effected by a decree in which he was not a party. The revisional court has also upheld the said reasoning. 9. Considering the fact that no rights of the petitioner have accrued in respect of the sale deed, which was earlier executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of the defendant no. 2 and the defendant no. 2 during his life time had transferred the said property to a third person, it is inconceivable as to what rights of the petitioner would be effected. In any case, as the petitioner is not a party to the suit, he would not be effected by the outcome of the decree. No good ground for interference is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench