Disposed¶17

Santosh Devi v. Satpal Singh and Others

Civil revision (CR) – partition suit

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Apr 2026CR/3266/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CR-3266-2026, decided 18.04.2026 by Deepak Gupta, J. — impleadment of a transferee pendente lite in final decree proceedings of a partition suit; purchaser (Santosh Devi) through chain Leela Devi (defendant No.3) to grandson Rahul (22.12.2023) to petitioner (08.07.2024), both transfers during pendency; rights confined to those of the transferor Leela Devi, not beyond; petitioner not allowed to take proceedings back; trial Court order dated 02.02.2026 upheld; petition disposed of. No statute or precedent cited in the order.

What did the court decide?

This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned trial Court order rejecting the petitioner's impleadment application. ¶11

Santosh Devi Vs Satpal Singh and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

106

¶4

CR-3266-2026 Date of Decision: 18.04.2026

¶5

Santosh Devi …..Pe��oner Vs. Satpal Singh and Others .….Respondents

¶6

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶7

Present:Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶8

¶9

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

Leela Devi being one of the co-sharer had been impleaded as defendant No.3 in a suit for par��on filed in July, 2019. She choose not to contest the suit and was proceeded ex parte in March, 2000. During pendency of the suit, she transferred her share to her grandson Rahul on 22.12.2023 and then from said Rahul, the pe��oner herein purchased the property on 08.07.2024, again during pendency of the suit. The preliminary decree was ul�mately passed on 31.07.2024 and now in the applica�on for passing of the final decree, the pe��oner moved an applica�on to be impleaded as a party, which has been rejected by trial Court vide order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-4), which is now assailed before this Court.

¶11

A�er hearing learned counsel for the pe��oner, this Court does not find illegality in the impugned order considering the fact that

¶12

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

CR-3266-2026

¶14

-2-

¶15

pe��oner had purchased the property from Rahul during pendency of suit, who had also acquired the rights during pendency of the suit. However the pe��oner being a transfree pendente lite, has stepped into the shoes of Leela Devi (defendant No.3) and therefore, he will be en�tled to protect his rights only to that extent to which Leela Devi was en�tled and not beyond that. It is further made clear that pe��oner will not be

¶16

allowed to take proceedings back.

¶17

Disposed of.

¶18

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 18, 2026 Nee�ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶19

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Santosh Devi v. Satpal Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Devi v. Satpal Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darshna Vs Karambir

Desh Raj Vs Surinder

Balkar Singh Vs Surinder

Indra @ Indra Ranga Vs Bimlesh Tanwar and Ors.

Hariya Vs Urmila

Arun Gupta Vs Kanta Handa Since Deceased through Counsel Dr. Payel Mehta and Others