Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110818 Court No. - 49 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2329 of 2025 Petitioner :- Harish Kumar Sahni Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar,Shrawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Pandey,C.S.C. Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. The petitioner is the purchaser of a plot of land bearing Plot No. 171/2 that was later on rectified to Plot No. 171/4 from one Ramchandra, a co-sharer in land that was subject matter of Suit No. 109 of 2023 for partition under Section 176 U.P. Z.A.&L.R. Act. In the suit, shares of parties were determined and declared by a preliminary decree passed on 13.03.2006. A final decree followed on 10.07.2006 after drawing up of lots. A Parvana Dakhal was issued in accordance with the final decree and the lots determined by the Amin on 17.08.2006. After about two years of the final decree being passed, the petitioner purchased the suit property from one of the partitioning co-sharers, Ramchandra vide registered sale deed dated 21.05.2008. The petitioner asserts that he was given Khas possession of Plot No. 171/4, according to the rectified sale deed. The petitioner argues that his name was entered in the revenue record/Khatauni on 28.08.2017 on the basis of the sale deed executed by Ramchandra. It was at this stage that the petitioner's possession was disturbed by one of the co-sharers in whose favour a preliminary decree has been passed and staked their claim to the part of the suit property that the petitioner has purchased. The petitioner, therefore, moved a recall application on 13.10.2020. The Trial Court vide order dated 09.12.2022, rejected the recall application as barred by time. The petitioner preferred a First Appeal against the order dated 09.12.2022, to the Commissioner Moradabad Division, Moradabad, which too was dismissed vide order dated 24.08.2024. The petitioner then approached the Board of Revenue by means of Second Appeal No. 3869 of 2024. The said appeal has been heard and dismissed by the impugned judgement and order dated 03.01.2025. The first appellate Court and particularly the second appellate court have gone more by the fact that the preliminary and the final decrees dated 13.03.2006 and 10.07.2006 were not appealed by the co-sharers between whom the partition suit was filed. They accepted their shares and also the partition thereof by metes and bounds. The petitioner who purchased much after passing of the final decree would have no right to question the decrees passed as far back as 13 or 14 years ago while the petitioner did not have a right in the property. To our mind, the said reasoning is flawless. Certainly, the petitioner had no right title or interest at the time when the decree in the partition suit was passed. To add to it is the fact that the principle of lis pendens would not invest the petitioner with any kind of right to seek impleadment in the pending suit and apply for recall of the decrees passed after purchase by the petitioner. The petitioner by dint of the doctrine of lis pendens would be bound by every decree that has been passed against his predecessors-in-title. He has no independent right to assert whatever be the ground. In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is summarily dismissed. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Brijesh Maurya Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad