The suit was companytested by two sets of defendants, one set of defendants was Birendra Nath Dey and Kalyani Dey and other set of defendants was Jagat Mohan Das alone.
There were troubles in between the original owner and the said Birendra Nath Dey and Smt.
In the instant case, the suit was decreed in favour of Fakir Mohammad by judgment and decree dated 03.11.1989.
Whether the High Court has number companymitted serious error while companycluding that the presence of the appellants is number necessary in order to decide the appeal and there is numbermerit in the application for addition of party though the application was made by the appellants for substitution of their names in place and stead of companytesting defendant No.10, who sold the suit property to the appellants?
631 and 632 of 1993 were filed by Fakir Mohammad, Farida Khatoon Ors.
At that time, the appellants, for the first time, came to know about the pendency of the above two appeals.
Respondent Nos.
632 of 1993 whereby the High Court dismissed the applications filed by the appellants for substitution of their names, namely, Amit Kumar Shaw and Anand Kumar Shaw as companytesting respondents in place and stead of Birendra Nath Dey and Smt.
Thereafter on verification, the appellants came to know about the pendency of the appeals which necessitated them to file the applications for substitution in the second appeals.
The second appeals filed by the parties were pending on the file of the High Court at Calcutta.
The appeals were preferred by the parties.
In the meanwhile, the appellants filed the applications before the Municipal authorities for mutation of their names in respect of the property on 24.12.2002 and the Municipal authority informed the appellants that they are number in a position to mutate the names of the appellants of the property in question because of the pendency of the two second appeals before the High Court at Calcutta.
Whether a decree for adverse possession is set aside in First Appeal in the year 1992 and numberstay application was filed for long 12 years till 2004 in the Second Appeal, whether a transferee interregnum from the owner defendant, without knowledge of the second appeal, is a necessary party or whether their application for substitution can be rejected, when there is numberallegation of mala fide or ill motive?
The appellants had numberknowledge of the second appeals.
Both the appeals were heard and by a companymon judgment and order dated 25.6.1992, the said appeals were allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif was set aside.
Therefore, the appellants filed applications for recording their names in the Municipal records.
400 of 1989 and Title Appeal No.
The advocate so engaged informed the appellants that two appeals being S.A.Nos.
On 15.12.1995, by a deed of assignment Birendra Nath Dey assigned his leasehold interest in respect of 132A, Circular Garden Reach Road, Calcutta in favour of the present appellants.
One Fakir Mohammad claimed his right, title and interest in respect of the property in question by way of adverse possession.
Whether the High Court has number companymitted error by rejecting the appellants application for substitution treating the same as addition of party and thereby rendering the appellants number suited and remediless?
herein.
Immediately thereafter, the appellants filed the petitions praying for adding them as a party in companynection with those two appeals.
Being aggrieved by the said decree, Fakir Mohammad filed S.A.Nos.
In this factual background, the following questions of law arise for companysideration by this Court in these appeals Whether on a companybined reading of Order 1 Rule 10, Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an application for substitution by a subsequent transferee can be rejected and he be number suited altogether?
The application under Order XXII Rule 10 can be made to the appellate Court even though the devolution of interest occurred when the case was pending in the trial Court.
OF 2005 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
Kalyani Dey and as a result of that, the suit was filed.
Similarly, by a sale deed on 15.12.1995, Kalyani Dey sold and transferred 132 B Circular Garden Reach Road, Calcutta in favour of the present appellants.
631 and 632 of 1993 challenging the said judgment of the first appellate Court.
Ultimately, both the appeals being Title Appeal No.
7 of 1990 were allowed by a companymon judgment and decree dated 25.06.1992 and the suit was remanded back for rehearing before the trial Court.
These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2004 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in C.A.N. No.
18076 of 2004 Dr. AR.
According to the appellants, the respondents above named had sold the suit property to the appellants, who are the only persons interested in the said suit property.
Kalyani Dey.
We heard Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior companynsel, appearing for the appellants and perused the pleadings, the annexures and the impugned order passed by the High Court.
Thereafter the appellants engaged an advocate to find out whether any such appeals have been filed by the parties.
2643 of 2004 in S.A.No.
It was also informed that the said appeals were admitted by the High Court but the impugned judgment and order was neither prayed for stay number stayed.
631 of 1993 and in C.A.N. No.
The service of numberice is companyplete in both the matters but numberone has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents.
Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted.
The short facts are as follows The property in question originally belonged to Khetra Mohan Das and subsequently by way of lease and transfer the said property ultimately came in the hands of Birendra Nath Dey and Smt.
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.17780 of 2004 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
2642 of 2004 in A.No.
By a deed of Assignment dated 15.12.1995, the said Birendra Nath Dey assigned his leasehold right in respect of 132 A Circular Garden Reach Road, presently known as 132 A, Karl Marx Sarani , Kolkata in favour of the appellants.
Kalyani Dey, both since deceased and represented by their legal heirs in their place.
By a deed of sale executed on 15.12.1995, duly registered with the Additional Registrar of Assurances, Calcutta, Kalyani Dey Sold the property being 132 B of the above address to the other appellant.
