Or.1 rule 10 CPC- The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in the year 2002 – The appellants herein, claimed that they have purchased the suit property by two sale deeds for valuable consideration from respondent nos. 1 to 4 -plaintiffs in the year 2012- pending the suit. -The appellants herein filed interlocutory application to implead themselves on the basis of their sale deeds -Respondent Nos 5 6, the defendants in the suit resisted the application contending that the sale deeds are fraudulent since respondent nos. 1 to 4-plaintiffs themselves do not have the title and they themselves are seeking for declaration of the title.-
Trail court dismissed the same on the ground that they are subsequent purchasers and not bonafide purchasers and if they were impleaded, it can be presumed that the plaintiffs title was accepted –
the High Court which again came to be dismissed –
Apex court held that No doubt respondent nos. 1 to 4 – plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of their title alleging that their title is disputed and that cannot in any way be an impediment for the appellants who are the subsequent purchasers, for being impleaded. whether the purchase by the appellants is bona fide or not is to be agitated only at the time of the trial after the parties adduce oral and documentary evidence. Since the appellants have purchased the suit property after the filing of the suit, in order to have
an effective adjudication and also to afford opportunity to the appellants, the impleading application is to be allowed – set aside the orders both courts and allowed the petition.