10 wp 14239 of 2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14239 OF 2024 Bhanudas Tukaram Shende and Anr. ... Petitioners versus Prakash Vinayak Joshi (deceased) and Ors. … Respondents Mr. Rajaram Vaman Bansode, for Petitioners. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 27 FEBRUARY 2025 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 16 February 2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Vaduj, whereby the application for amendment in the plaint so as to bring the subsequent transferees on record as party Defendants came to be rejected. The learned District Judge was of the view that the principle contained under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would come into play and the decree would bind the subsequent transferees who are the wife and son of Defendant No.2. 3. An appeal has been preferred by the Petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15 December 2012 whereby the suit came to be partly allowed and the Sale Deed dated 22 May 1986 was declared to be binding on Defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 only to the extent of the share of deceased Vinayak in the suit properties in RCS No.137 of 1983. The SSP 1/2 10 wp 14239 of 2024.doc Petitioners were seeking relief of possession of the suit properties. As the said relief was not granted, the Petitioners preferred an appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the transfer of the interest of Defendant No.2 during the pendency of the appeal would lead to complications in the execution of the decree in the event the Petitioners succeed in the appeal. Therefore, it was necessary to implead the transferees as party Respondents-Defendants to the said appeal. 5. In the peculiar facts of the case, the view taken by the learned District Judge appears to be sustainable. Defendant No.2 has transferred his interest in favour of his wife and son. The decree would bind the legal representatives of the Defendant No.2. At any rate, the principles contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would bind the transferees and the transfer would be subject to the outcome of the eventual decree that may be passed in the appeal. 6. Hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. 7. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 2/2 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 28/02/2025 12:14:13