Allowed

Smt Lad Kanwar v. Ladu and Others

Rajasthan HC17 Jan 2015CMA/20/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appellate court upheld the appellant's entitlement to restrain a respondent from alienating suit property during the pendency of a cancellation suit, applying the doctrine of lis pendens and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, despite acknowledged delay in filing the original suit.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 10 restrained from alienating or transferring the suit property without written permission of the court till disposal of the civil suit.

Smt Lad Kanwar Vs Ladu and Others — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAI PUR BENCH JAI PUR

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

Smt . Lad Kanwar Vs. Shr i Ladu & Or s. S. B. Ci vi l Mi sc. Appeal No. 20/ 2015

¶5

Dat e of Judgment : 17^th Januar y, 2015

¶6

P R E S E N T HON' BLE MR. JUSTI CE ATUL KUMAR JAI N

¶7

Mr . M. C. Jai n, f or t he appel l ant . Mr . Ramesh Kumawat , f or r espondent . No. 10

¶8

BY THE COURT

¶9

` I n t hi s mat t er , Smt . Lad Kanwar and r espondent No. 10 Chhaj ur am ar e t he onl y cont est i ng par t i es. Names of r espondent s Nos. 1 t o 9 wer e del et ed at t he r equest of l ear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant . I n t hi s ci vi l mi sc. appeal , t he appel l ant has chal l enged t he or der dat ed 26. 11. 2014, whi ch was passed i n Ci vi l Mi sc. Fi l e No. 31/ 2014 r el at i ng t o Ci vi l Sui t No. 37/ 2014( 505/ 2014) by Addl . Di st r i ct Judge No. 9, Jai pur Met r o, Jai pur . By t he i mpugned or der , t he l ear ned t r i al cour t has di smi ssed t he pr ayer f or t empor ar y i nj unct i on f i l ed by Smt . Lad Kanwar agai nst Ladu and ot her s.

¶10

I have hear d ar gument s of bot h t he par t i es. I t has been ar gued by t he appel l ant t hat she was ent i t l ed t o her shar e i n t he j oi nt pr oper t y of Har i Si ngh( f at her of Lad Kanwar ) , Jwal a Si ngh and Nat hu Si ngh, but Nat hu Si ngh cl ai mi ng t o be t he sol e owner of t he sui t pr oper t y had sol d t he sui t pr oper t y i n t he year 1967 t o ancest or s of r espondent s Nos. 1 t o 4 and

¶11

¶12

t hen r espondent s Nos. 1 t o 4 f ur t her sol d t he sui t pr oper t y i n t he year 1999 on 21. 8. 1999 t o ancest or s of r espondent s Nos. 5 t o 9 and t hen i n t he year 2012 on 23. 7. 2012 r espondent s Nos. 5 t o 7 have f ur t her sol d t he sui t pr oper t y t o r espondent No. 10. Sui t f or cancel l at i on of t hose sal e deeds has been f i l ed by Smt . Lad Kanwar i n t he t r i al cour t and she want s t hat t i l l t he deci si on of Ci vi l Sui t No. 505/ 2014. Sui t pr oper t y coul d not be al l owed t o be f ur t her sol d t o any ot her per son ot her wi se compl i cacy wi l l ar i se and i t has al so been pr ayed t hat a pr i ma f aci e case exi st s i n f avour of t he appel l ant . I n suppor t of t he ar gument s appel l ant had submi t t ed j amabandi Khatauni f or Samvat Year 2037 t o 2041 and al so Khatauni Bandowast f or Samvat Year 2010 t o 2023 and Khasr a Par i var tansheel al so f or t hat per i od bef or e t he l ower cour t . I t has been ar gued t hat i n al l t hese document s Nat hu Si ngh, Har i Si ngh and Jwal a Si ngh sons of Sheo Sahai Si ngh Rao r esi dent of Devpur i a wer e ment i oned as Kastkar . I t has al so been br ought t o t he not i ce of t hi s Cour t t hat Har i Si ngh expi r ed on 3. 3. 2006 and Smt . Mool i Kanwar wi dow of Har i Si ngh al so expi r ed on 14. 1. 2012. Lad Kanwar and r espondent s Nos. 12 t o 16 ar e l egal r epr esent at i ves of l at e Har i Si ngh. On t hat basi s Smt . Lad Kanwar has pr ayed i n t hi s appeal t hat t empor ar y i nj unct i on shoul d be passed i n her f avour agai nst r espondent No. 10 so t hat r espondent No. 10 may not f ur t her al i enat e t he sui t pr oper t y, whi ch i s agr i cul t ur al l and si t uat ed i n Vi l l age Dal pur a Tehsi l , Amer , Di st r i ct , Jai pur .

¶13

¶14

On t he ot her hand, r espondent No. 10 cl ai ms t o be bona f i de pur chaser of t he sui t pr oper t y. I t has been ar gued on hi s behal f t hat t he sui t pr oper t y was sol d by r egi st er ed sal e deed f or t he f i r st t i me i n t he year 1967 on 7. 6. 1967. I t has been ar gued t hat af t er 40- 45 year s t he appel l ant has chal l enged t he sai d sal e deeds and so she cannot be gi ven any r el i ef . I t has f ur t her been ar gued t hat amended Sect i ons 6 & 8 of t he Hi ndu Successi on Act , 1956 cannot be gi ven r et r ospect i ve appl i cat i on t o successi on whi ch had

¶15

al r eady been opened bef or e t he Amendment Act came i nt o f or ce.

¶16

The appel l ant r el i es upon t he f ol l owi ng

¶17

r ul i ngs: -

¶18

( i ) M/s Toyal Bros. Vs. Gram Panchayat Chi charwari 1988 (1) RLR 850

¶19

( i i ) Raj eshwer Shankar Choudhary @ Raj esh Choudhary & Anr. 2013 WLC (Raj . ) UC 556 ( i i i ) Mohd. Sadiq & Ors. Vs. Abi da & Ors. 2010 (3) DNJ (Raj . ) 1274

¶20

( i v) Kamal Kumar Vs. Bheru Bux & Ors. 2011 WLC (Raj . ) UC 442

¶21

I n t he af or esai d r ul i ngs i ngr edi ent s of a pr i ma f aci e case have been el abor at ed, i n one case appl i cat i on f or t empor ar y i nj unct i on was di smi ssed but st i l l t he def endant was di r ect ed by t he Hi gh Cour t t hat he wi l l not be al l owed t o t r ansf er t he sui t pr oper t y dur i ng t he pendency of t he sui t . I t was hel d i n t hat case, i f t he par t i es ar e not di r ect ed t o mai nt ai n st at us quo r egar di ng al i enat i on of sui t

¶22

¶23

pr oper t y t hen i t wi l l cr eat e unnecessar y compl i cat i ons and i t may mul t i pl y t he pr oceedi ngs.

¶24

Respondent No. 10 has r el i ed upon f ol l owi ng r ul i ngs: -

¶25

( i ) Val l abh Darshan Hotel Pvt . Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Raj ast han & Ors. 2007 (2) DNJ (Raj . ) 940. I n t hi s case t her e was no pr i ma f aci e case i n f avour of t he r espondent and t he sui t f or cancel l at i on of sal e deed was f i l ed by t he r espondent i n t he t r i al cour t af t er l apse of f our year s of execut i on of sal e deed and i n such ci r cumst ances, i t was hel d t hat t empor ar y i nj unct i on shoul d not have been gi ven t o t he pl ai nt i f f - r espondent .

¶26

( i i ) Sheel a Devi & Ors. Vs. Lal Chand & Anr. 2007 (1) WLC SC 157. I n t hi s case i t was hel d t hat t he par l i ament has conf er r ed r i ght s upon t he f emal e hei r s even i n r el at i on t o j oi nt f ami l y pr oper t y by amendi ng Hi ndu Successi on Act . I t was f ur t her hel d t hat i f t he successi on has al r eady opened i n 1989 t hen t he pr ovi si ons of t he Amendment Act woul d have no appl i cat i on.

¶27

( i i i ) Surendra Bhat i a Vs. Poonam Bhat i a & Ors. 2006(1) WLC (Raj . ) 648. I n t hi s case, i t was hel d t hat mar r i ed daught er cannot cl ai m successi on t o ancest r al pr oper t y. The case was deci ded on 22. 11. 2005 i n D. B. Speci al Appeal by t he Hi gh Cour t .

¶28

( i v) Gul ab Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. (2006

¶29

(2) WLC (Raj . ) 463. I n t hi s case, i t was hel d

¶30

¶31

t hat a wi dow af t er r emar r i age wi l l have no r i ght t o l and bel ongi ng t o her f or mer husband. I t was f ur t her hel d t hat a mar r i ed daught er has no r i ght i n ancest r al pr ooper t y of her f at her . Thi s case was al so deci ded on 1. 2. 2006.

¶32

I t has been ar gued by t he r espondent No. 10 t hat sui t of Lad Kanwar was bar r ed by l i mi t at i on and f ur t her she i s est opped t o make any chal l enge t o r egi st er ed sal e deeds af t er deat h of her f at her because her f at her Har i Si ngh di d not t hi nk i t f i t t o chal l enge t he sai d t r ansact i ons i n hi s l i f e t i me.

¶33

Af t er hear i ng ar gument s of bot h t he par t i es and af t er per usal of t he document s r ef er r ed by t he par t i es dur i ng t he ar gument s I am of t he vi ew t hat because of i nor di nat e del ay appel l ant may or may not have a pr i ma f aci e case i n her f avour i n st r i ct sense of t he t er m, but she i s ent i t l ed t o get a qui ck deci si on i n her sui t i n whi ch she has pr ayed f or cancel l at i on of t hr ee sal e deeds. As per Sect i on 52 of t he Tr ansf er of Pr oper t y Act , r espondent No. 10,

¶34

t hough he may be a bona f i de pur chaser , shal l not be ent i t l ed t o al i enat e t he sui t pr oper t y wi t hout per mi ssi on of t hi s Cour t because t he pr oceedi ngs i n t he t r i al cour t ar e not col l usi ve and i n t hose pr oceedi ngs r i ght t o t he sui t pr oper t y i s di r ect l y and speci f i cal l y i n quest i on.

¶35

I n t he ci r cumst ances of t he case and af t er f ol l owi ng t he l ogi c gi ven i n Raj eshwer Shankar Choudhar y' s case ( supr a) , I am of t he vi ew t hat even

¶36

¶37

i f t he t r i al cour t was not ent i t l ed t o accept t he appl i cat i on of Smt . Lad Kanwar under gener al pr ovi si ons of Or der 39 Rul e 1 or Rul e 2 of CPC, but i t shoul d have r est r ai ned t he r espondent No. 10 f r om maki ng f ur t her al i enat i on of t he sui t pr oper t y because i f t he r espondent No. 10 i s al l owed t o t r ansf er t he sui t pr oper t y dur i ng t he pendency of t he sui t t hen i t wi l l cr eat e so many compl i cat i ons and i t woul d cause i nconveni ence t o t he cour t al so t o deci de t he sui t by an ear l y dat e.

¶38

Hence, appeal of Smt . Lad Kanwar i s her eby accept ed t o t he ext ent t hat she may or may not have a pr i ma f aci e case i n her f avour i n st r i ct sense of t he t er m, but she i s eni t l ed t o r est r ai n t he r espondent No. 10 f r om maki ng f ur t her al i enat i on of t he sui t pr oper t y t i l l t he di sposal of t he sui t , as per t he pr ovi si ons of Sect i on 52 of t he T. P. Act because doct r i ne of l i s pendens appl i es t o t he mat t er and hence t he r espondent No. 10 i s her eby r est r ai ned and now he wi l l not be ent i t l ed t o al i enat e or t r ansf er t he sui t pr oper t y wi t hout wr i t t en per mi ssi on of t hi s Cour t . Thi s r est r i ct i on wi l l appl y t i l l t he deci si on of t he Ci vi l Sui t No. 37/ 2014( 505/ 2014) by t he t r i al cour t . The t r i al cour t i s al so her eby di r ect ed t o expedi t i ousl y deci de t he sai d sui t by i t s best ef f or t s.

¶39

( ATULKUMAR JAI N) , J

¶40

BKS/ -

¶41

¶42

“ All cor r ect ions m ade in t h e j udgm ent / or der have been in cor por at ed in t he j udgm ent / or der bein g em ailed.”

¶43

B.K. SHRIVASTAVA PRIVATE SECRETARY

Smt Lad Kanwar v. Ladu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lad Kanwar v. Ladu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh and Another Vs Nathu Lal and Others

Saroj and Others Vs U O I through G M Western Railway North

Netram and Ors. Vs Brahma Devi and Ors.

Harbhan and Others Vs Banny Singh and Others

Gangadhar and Others Vs Kanhiya Lal

Om Prakash Sharma Vs Prithvi Singh