Delhi High Court
Arvind Kaur Bedi vs Paramjit Singh Bedi & Ors on 10 August, 2018
$~OS-4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 10.08.2018
+ CS(OS) 375/2017
ARVIND KAUR BEDI ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr.Sushant,Mahajan, Adv.
versus
PARAMJIT SINGH BEDI & ORS ..... Defendants
Through Mr.Rajvinder Singh, Adv. for D-1
and D-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL)
IA No.9282/2017
1. This application is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking
interim injunction to restrain the defendants or its nominee from
transferring, selling, alienating or parting with possession of the immoveable
properties bearing Nos.Flat EB 200, SFS Flats, Maya Enclave, G-8 Area,
Rajouri Garden (now called Hari Nagar), New Delhi and Flat No.7556 (First
Floor), Sector-B, Pocket-10, SFS DDA Flats, Vasant Kunj, Delhi.
2. This suit is filed for partition, injunction and declaration regarding the
said two properties situated at Hari Nagar and Vasant Kunj. It has been
pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff is the widow of Late Sh.M.S.Bedi (S/o
of Late Sh.C.S.Bedi) and is staying in Vasant Kunj property. The plaintiff
and the defendants are said to be the successors and part of a Joint Hindu
Family of Late Sh.C.S.Bedi. It is stated that the family had purchased two
CS(OS) 375/2017 Page 1
flats Nos.Flat EB 200, SFS Flats, Maya Enclave, G-8 Area, Rajouri Garden
(now called Hari Nagar), New Delhi and Flat No.7556 (First Floor), Sector-
B, Pocket-10, SFS DDA Flats, Vasant Kunj, Delhi out of Joint Family
Funds.
3. It is also stated that in view of the family arrangement between the
family members in 1994, the plaintiff, her husband Late Sh.M.S.Bedi and
defendant Nos.4 and 5, i.e. their son and daughter, respectively had moved
to Vasant Kunj property, and the plaintiff has been in continuous and
uninterrupted possession of Vasant Kunj property. Subsequently, the
husband of the plaintiff died in 1997. It is pleaded that in view of the oral
family settlement/agreement in 1994, for more than 20 years the plaintiff has
been in peaceful possession of the Vasant Kunj property. Now defendant
No.1 has since the death of Late Sh.C.S.Bedi has started claiming ownership
over both Hari Nagar as well as Vasant Kunj properties which is in violation
of the oral family settlement/agreement. Hence the present suit.
4. The learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos.1 to 3 submits that
as far as the property at Vasant Kunj is concerned, it is their own personal
property and is bought from their own funds. He submits that he has taken a
loan from a bank. There is a conveyance deed in favour of defendant No.1
from DDA. It is also pleaded that so far as the property at Hari Nagar is
concerned, it is in the name of Late Sh.C.S.Bedi and defendant No.2,
namely, Smt.Harsharan Kaur Bedi. It is urged that at best the plaintiff has
1/8th share in the property at Hari Nagar. Hence, it is pleaded that the suit is
misconceived and misplaced and would not lie.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff relied upon the two
CS(OS) 375/2017 Page 2
facts to plead the rights of the plaintiff in the property. Firstly, reliance is
placed on the document termed as „Will‟ of Late Sh.C.S.Bedi dated
10.12.1992 wherein Mr.C.S.Bedi had mentioned that defendant No.1 had
acquired a residential flat at Vasant Kunj which was bought out of the funds
collected by the joint family. It is further stated that the plaintiff has been
residing in the suit property at Vasant Kunj for more than 20 years. These
two facts show existence of oral family settlement and the property was
bought from the funds of the joint family.
7. The learned counsel for the defendants has denied the title of the
plaintiff to the property at Vasant Kunj. He has pointed out that in the
property at Vasant Kunj the plaintiff is only a licensee. Merely because they
were allowed to stay out of love and affection cannot confer any title to the
suit property at Vasant Kunj on the plaintiff. He however, submits that
defendants shall not forcibly dispossess the plaintiff without due process of
law from the property in question.
8. The perusal of the fact shows that as far as the Hari Nagar property is
concerned, defendant No.1 concedes that the plaintiff do have some rights,
title or interest in the suit property. I, accordingly, direct the parties to
maintain status quo regarding title and possession of the said Hari Nagar
property.
9. As far as the Vasant Kunj property is concerned, conveyance deed is
in favour of defendant No.1 executed by DDA. Further defendant No.1
submits that he has taken a bank loan for purchase of this property which
loan he has been repaying. He further states that he will not dispossess the
plaintiff from the suit property except due process of law.
10. No doubt, there is a statement on record of Late Sh.C.S.Bedi who had
CS(OS) 375/2017 Page 3
in a document termed as „Will‟ mentioned that the said Vasant Kunj
property was bought from the funds of the joint family. Prima facie this will
not lead to a conclusion of existence of a HUF/joint family. However, these
are the aspects which will have to be gone into at the time of adjudication of
the suit after the parties have led evidence. At this stage, given the fact that
the conveyance deed is in favour of defendant No.1, I am not inclined to
pass any interim order in favour of the plaintiff regarding said property.
Defendant No.1 will remain bound by his statement i.e. that he will not
dispossess the plaintiff except by due process of law.
11. I may however note that doctrine of lis pendens will in any case
continue to apply.
12. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 reads as follows:
"52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.--During
the [pendency] in any Court having authority 2[3[within the
limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir] or
established beyond such limits] by 4[the Central Government]
5[* * *] of 6[any] suit or proceedings which is not collusive and
in which any right to immoveable property is directly and
specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or
otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as
to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree
or order which may be made therein, except under the authority
of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.
7[Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the pendency
of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the
date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the
proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue
until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final
decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such
decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable
by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation
prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time
CS(OS) 375/2017 Page 4
being in force.]
13. The Supreme Court in Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami & Ors.,
(1972) 2 SCC 200, while explaining the doctrine of lis pendens, had held
that the purpose of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is not to defeat
any just and equitable claim but only to subject them to the authority of the
court which is dealing with the property. The court held as follows:
"44. In the Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol. L.IV, P.570), we find
the following definition:
"Lis Pendens literally means a pending suit; and the doctrine
of lis pendens has been defined as the jurisdiction, power or
control which a court acquires over property involved in a
suit pending the continuance of the action, and until final
judgment therein."
45. Expositions of the doctrine indicate that the need for it
arises from the very nature of the jurisdiction of Courts and
their control over the subject- matter of litigation so that parties
litigating before it may not remove any part of the subject-
matter outside the power of the court to deal with it and thus
make the proceedings frunctuous."
14. This application accordingly is disposed of.
JAYANT NATH, J.
AUGUST 10, 2018/v
corrected and released on 20.08.2018
CS(OS) 375/2017 Page 5
