Sheema Ali Khan, J. (Oral)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 in this case.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2011 in Probate Case No.4 of 2008/Title Suit No.3 of 2010, by which the court has reviewed its own order and added Sanjiv Kumar Sinha @ Pappu as a party in the probate proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the court could not have reviewed its own order. In answer to aforesaid submissions, it may be stated that it is amply clear that the court had rejected the intervention petition because of the reason that it was under the impression that the itervenor had purchased the land in 2010, after filing of the probate case, whereas the sale deed was executed in 2007. The year 2010 was a typing mistake and as such the review Patna High Court application was entertained.

3. The second and the more important issue raised in this case is whether transferee can be added as party in a probate case The facts are that the probate case was filed in the year 2008. The sale deed was registered in favour of the intervenor on 10.7.2007 prior to the filing of the probate case. Under these circumstances the court has allowed the intervenor to be added as party in the probate case.

4. It has been held time and again that anyone who purchases a property which is the subject matter of a suit does so at his own risk and will not have a better title than his vendor. It does not need any citation to conclude that a transferee is not a necessary party if the transfer deed was executed after the institution of the suit. There have been instances where this Court, including the Apex Court, in civil cases, on facts allowed a transferee to be added as a party, even though sale deed was registered after the institution of a suit.

5. In the present case, the fact reveals that the intervenor-respondent no.2 had purchased the land from the objector before the probate case was instituted. Under such circumstances he can be added as a party as he has a right to protect his interest. This proposition has been upheld by a learned Patna High Court Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ekta Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., Patna v. The Estate of Late Ram Parichan Singh & Ors. vide order dated 8.12.2011 passed in CWJC No.16881 of 2011. This was challenged in SLP No.15728 of 2012 which was dismissed on 17.9.2012. Apart from the aforesaid cases, there are two other judgments of the Patna High Court which support this proposition which are reported in 1983 BLJ 212 (Kalika Singh & another v. Awadhesh Narayan Singh & Ors.), and AIR 1983 PATNA 114 (Abdul Gafoor v. State of Bihar).

6. In the facts of the case, I find no illegality in the order impugned. The writ petition is dismissed.