[2025:RJ-JP:38109] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13437/2025 Smt. Ruksana W/o Mohammad Ramjan, Aged About 47 Years, R/o House No. 3851, Kumharoo Ki Nadi, Chokri Ramchandra Ji, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner/ Applicant Versus 1. Mohammad Ramjan S/o Shri Noor Mohammad, Aged About 50 Years, Profession - Neelgaran, R/o House No.3851, Kumahroo Ki Nadi, Chokri Ramchandra Ji, Jaipur. ...Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Smt. Jahida W/o Late Mohammad Aslam, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of House No. 1389, Nagoo Ka Khura, Niwai Mahant Ka Rasta, Chokri Ghat Darwaja, Jaipur. 3. Mohammad Akib S/o Late Mohammad Aslam, Aged About 16 Years, Minor Through Natural Mother Smt. Jahida Begum W/o Late Shri Mohammad Aslam, (Now Major) Resident Of House No. 1389, Nagoo Ka Khura, Niwai Mahant Ka Rasta, Chokri Ghat Darwaja, Jaipur. 4. Ms. Aksina D/o Late Shri Mohammad Aslam, Aged About 14 Years, Minor Through Natural Mother Smt. Jahida Begum W/o Late Shri Mohammad Aslam (Now Major) Resident Of House No. 1389, Nagoo Ka Khura, Niwai Mahant Ka Rasta, Chokri Ghat Darwaja, Jaipur. 5. Shri Mohammad Arif S/o Late Shri Mohammad Yakub, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Plot No. B-39, Ramgarh Road, Govindpuri (East) Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondents/ Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghav Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 17/09/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:38109] (2 of 4) [CW-13437/2025] 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with a challenge to order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.59/2018, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC on 04.10.2023, was dismissed. 2. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. As per the fact on record, a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 11.07.2003 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1- Mohammed Ramjan against the defendants-respondents, namely; Smt. Jahida, Mohammad Akib, Ms. Aksina & Shri Mohammad Arif. It was averred in the plaint by the plaintiff that late Mohammad Aslam, the predecessor of the defendants-respondents was the owner of 1/6th share in the suit property and by an agreement dated 11.07.2003, late Mohammad Aslam executed an agreement to sell his 1/6th share of the suit property for a sum of Rs.3,51,000/- and it was also averred that the said agreement was not attested by the Notary Public. The applicant/petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as a party to the suit proceedings, submitting therein that the plaintiff- Mohammad Ramjan by way of two gift deeds, has given his share in the suit property and he has also purchased the share of the respondent/defendant No.5- Shri Mohammad Arif vide agreement dated 06.01.2010. It has been submitted that he has got the title over the suit property by way of the aforesaid gift deeds dated 17.02.2023 and sale agreement dated 06.01.2010 and thus, in proper jurisdiction of the dispute [2025:RJ-JP:38109] (3 of 4) [CW-13437/2025] between the parties in the suit proceedings, she is the appropriate party. 4. The suit was filed in the year 2015 for specific performance by the plaintiff respondent Mohammad Ramjan, who is the husband of the applicant/petitioner- Smt. Ruksana. First of all, even Mohammad Ramjan, who has made two gift deeds dated 17.02.2023 in favour of the petitioner/applicant- Smt. Ruksana, is also not having the title over the suit property because the plaintiff/respondent alleged to have the rights over the suit property by way of an agreement to sell. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ramesh Chand Vs. Suresh Chand and Anr. (Civil Appeal No.6377/2012) decided on 01.09.2025 has observed as under:- “17. In the instant matter, undisputedly plaintiff claims that there is only an agreement to sell, and there is no sale deed executed in his favour by the father. As per the settled position of law, this document does not confer a valid title on the plaintiff as it is not a deed of conveyance as per Section 54 of the TP Act. At best, it only enables the plaintiff to seek for specific performance for the execution of a sale deed and does not create an interest or charge on the suit property.” 6. Untill the plaintiff/respondent, Mohammad Ramjan, obtains a valid title over the suit property, any document transferring the suit property by him to any third party that is his wife in the present case by way of gift deeds, cannot be said to be a valid transfer. [2025:RJ-JP:38109] (4 of 4) [CW-13437/2025] 7. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter is to be referred to as ‘the Act of 1882’) also safeguards the interest of the subsequent purchasers. 8. In the present case, the property in question is said to have been transferred by gift deed to the petitioner/applicant by the plaintiff/respondent during pendency of the suit proceedings. In such situation, the petitioner is not a necessary party because the provision of Section 54 of the Act of 1882 safeguards her interest. One more peculiar fact has come out that the plaintiff respondent- Mohammad Ramjan, who has filed the suit for specific performance in view of agreement to sell, himself is not having the valid title in his favour, and gift deed to the suit property to the petitioner/applicant during pendency of the suit proceedings speaks no volume about malafide intention of the plaintiff respondent and the present petitioner/applicant. 9. In view of the discussions made above and the other relevant facts as mentioned in the order passed by the Court below, this Court finds no error or illegality in the order of the Court below rejecting the application filed by the applicant petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed having no merit. 11. The stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /54