Shri Ramavtar Singh Yadav vs Om Veer Singh
2014 Latest Caselaw 1008 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  FAO No.244/2013and C.M. No.8853/2013(stay)

%                                                   24th February, 2014

SHRI RAMAVTAR SINGH YADAV                                 ..... Appellant
                 Through: None.


                          Versus
OM VEER SINGH                                             ..... Respondent
                          Through:       Mr. Prabhat Kaushik, Advocate.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed against the order of the trial Court dated

12.3.2013 by which the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed

by the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed. The application for injunction

which has been dismissed by the impugned order was filed in a suit for

possession, damages and injunction by the appellant/plaintiff against the

respondent/defendant.




FAO No.244/2013                                                 Page 1 of 3
 2.           The issue is with respect to the suit property being one shop

bearing no.B-1, Gajipur Dairy Farm, Delhi on an area of 80 sq mtrs.

Appellant/plaintiff is said to have acquired rights in the immovable property

by means of the registered agreement to sell dated 24.1.2006. There is

another suit which is filed against the appellant/plaintiff by the respondent

herein alongwith Sh. Dharambir to whom the suit property was transferred

by the present respondent. In the other suit, the respondent herein alongwith

Sh. Dharambir has prayed for cancellation of the registered agreement to sell

dated 24.1.2006 executed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff by the

respondent herein. Trial court has dismissed the stay application essentially

by observing that an agreement to sell does not confer any right, title and

interest in the property and that the appellant/plaintiff had not filed any suit

for specific performance.

3.           In my opinion, the trial court has fallen into an error inasmuch

as once the agreement to sell is registered whatever rights which would flow

under that agreement would be available to the appellant/plaintiff and if

there is any defect in the form of the suit, that would be examined by the

court at the appropriate stage, however form of the suit at the interim stage

should not defeat any valuable rights in favour of the appellant/plaintiff

FAO No.244/2013                                                   Page 2 of 3
 created by means of the registered agreement to sell dated 24.1.2006. In any

case, once the suit is filed with respect to an immovable property, the

doctrine of lis pendens contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property

Act, 1882 will come in and the respondent/defendant if he transfers the suit

property it would be subject to rights of the appellant/plaintiff.


4.           In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of with the

direction that in case the respondent/defendant or any person claiming

through him transfers any right, title or interest in the suit property during

the pendency of the suit, then, the aspect of protection to the

appellant/plaintiff of the doctrine of lis pendens contained in Section 52 of

the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 will be mentioned in such document(s) of

transfer. Parties are left to bear their own costs.




FEBRUARY 24, 2014                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne