Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rati Ram Etc vs Ranjit Singh Etc on 10 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
1. RSA-1296-1987 (O&M)
2024:PHHC:049626
****
RICHPAL AND OTHERS
. . . . APPELLANTS
Vs.
RANJIT AND OTHERS
. . . . RESPONDENTS
****
2. RSA-1297-1987 (O&M)
2024:PHHC:049627
RATI RAM AND OTHERS
. . . . APPELLANTS
Vs.
RANJIT AND OTHERS
. . . . RESPONDENTS
****
Reserved on: 21.03.2024
Pronounced on: 10.04.2024
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
****
Argued By:-
Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, with
Ms. Himani Sarin, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate, for the respondents.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
These two Regular Second Appeals have arisen out of the
proceedings of the same suit. Suit for declaration (registered as Civil Suit
No.66 of 1980, instituted on 22.03.1979) filed by plaintiffs was decreed by
trial court on 6.11.1981. Two appeals emanated, one (registered as CA No.4-
13 of 1982/1986) by some of the defendants; and the other (registered as CA
No.7-13/5-13 of 1982/1986) by subsequent vendees from all the defendants.
Both appeals were dismissed by the first appellate court vide two separate
1 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
judgments both dated 21.10.1986 and hence these appeals.
2. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their
status before the trial Court.
Admitted Facts:
3. One Dhanna was owner of 142 Bighas 11 Biswas of land situated
in village Kasni Kalan, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani (Haryana) [herein
referred to as 'suit land' or 'land of Kasni Kalan']. Said Dhanna also owned
20 Bighas 5 Biswas of land besides half share in another 32 Bighas 6 Biswas
of land situated in village Kalali, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani (Haryana)
[hereinafter referred to as 'land of village Kalali']. On the death of Dhanna,
he was succeeded by his three sons namely, Hazari, Hira and Sheo Chand,
who inherited the land of both the villages in equal shares.
4. Plaintiffs of the suit Ranjit etc. [Respondents N: 1 to 4 in RSA N:
1296 of 1987] are the legal heirs of Hazari son of Dhanna. Defendants No.1 to
5 - Amar Singh etc. [Appellants & performa respondent N: 5 in RSA N: 1296
of 1987] are the legal heirs of Hira son of Dhanna; whereas defendants No.6
to 12 - Smt. Dhampa etc. [Performa respondent N: 6 to 12 in RSA N: 1296 of
1987] are the legal heirs of Sheo Chand son of Dhanna.
Case pleaded by the plaintiffs:
5.1 According to plaintiffs, their father Hazari son of Dhanna had
started living in village Kasni Kalan and also started cultivating the land left
by his father in this village. On the other hand, Hira and Sheo Chand i.e.
predecessor of defendants No.1 to 5 and defendants No.6 to 12, respectively,
started residing in village Kalali, who exclusively started cultivating the land
left by their father in said village Kalali. Later, on the death of Hazari,
2 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
plaintiffs started cultivating the land left by their father in village Kasni Kalan;
whereas on the death of Hira, his sons i.e. defendants No.1 to 5 started
cultivating land left by their father in village Kalali. Sheo Chand continued
irrigating his land in village Kalali.
5.2 It was pleaded further that on 06.06.1955, private partition
(Ex.P1) of the ancestral land was effected between the plaintiffs on one hand
and Sheo Chand on the other hand in the presence of Panchayat, in which it
was settled that plaintiffs shall be exclusively owner in possession of the land
situated in village Kasni Kalan, in which Sheo Chand or his legal heirs will
have no right, title or interest. Sheo Chand accepted 400/- from the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs relinquished all their rights and interest in the land of village Kalali,
which was under the ownership and possession of Sheo Chand. Similarly,
another family partition was effected on 25.03.1957 (Ex.P2) between
plaintiffs on one hand and defendants No.1 to 5 i.e. legal heirs of Hira on the
other hand, whereby defendants No.1 to 5 accepted `600/- and relinquished
all their rights in the land of village Kasni Kalan; whereas plaintiffs
relinquished all their rights and interest in the property situated in village
Kalali. It was pleaded that in this manner, plaintiffs became exclusive owners
in possession of the suit land i.e. land situated in village Kasni Kalan;
whereas, defendants became exclusive owners in possession of the land of
village Kalali. It was pleaded further that though parties have been in
exclusive possession of land accordingly, but inadvertently, the terms of
family partition were not incorporated in the revenue record, in as much as,
defendants continued to be shown as co-owners of the suit property situated in
village Kasni Kalan and vice versa.
3 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
5.3 By contending to be in exclusive possession of the suit land for
the last more than 12 years, plaintiffs also claimed to have become owners
thereof by way of adverse possession.
5.4 As per plaintiffs, they asked the defendants to get the entries in
the revenue record corrected as per the terms of the family partition, but they
refused to do so and rather, started claiming ownership of the suit land of
village Kasni Kalan during consolidation proceedings, which compelled the
plaintiffs to file the present suit.
5.5 Plaintiffs prayed for a decree of declaration that they are
exclusive owner in possession of the suit land of village Kasni Kalan; that the
entries to the contrary in favour of the defendants are wrong, illegal and not
bindings on the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further prayed for decree of permanent
injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in their possession of the
suit land on the basis of incorrect entries in the revenue record.
Stand of defendants:
6. Defendants contested the suit and in their written statement,
denied the plaintiffs to be in exclusive possession over the suit land of village
Kasni Kalan. They further denied that they or their predecessor ever entered
into any family settlement with the plaintiffs, as claimed. They denied to have
relinquished their rights in the suit property of village Kasni Kalan or that
plaintiffs had become owners thereof by way of adverse possession. Some
customary preliminary objections like locus standi, maintainability and
limitation were also raised. Defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
Issues framed by court:
4 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
7. In rejoinder, plaintiffs reiterated their case. Parties went to trial
for adjudication on the following issues:-
"1. Whether a partition had taken place on 6.6.1955 between the plaintiffs
and Sheo Chand (deceased) and if so, to what effect? OPP.
2. Whether a partition had taken place between the plaintiffs and
defendants No.1 to 5 on 25.3.57 and if so, to what effect? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land? If so, in what
capacity? OPP.
4. Whether the entries in the revenue record regarding the suit land in
favour of the defendants are wrong, not binding on the rights of the
plaintiffs and are liable to be set aside? OPD.
5. Whether the suit is against law and facts and is liable to be dismissed?
OPD.
6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi or cause of action to file
the present suit? OPD.
7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.
8. Whether the proper Court fee has not been paid by the plaintiffs?
OPD.
9. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD.
10. Whether the defendants have knowingly violated the order of the
Court and if so, to what effect? OPP.
11. Relief."
8. Plaintiffs produced oral as well as documentary evidence to
support their case. However, no evidence, either oral or documentary, was
produced by the defendants and so, the same was closed vide Court order
dated 30.10.1981.
Application under Order I Rule 10 CPC by Rati Ram etc.
5 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
9. On the adjourned date of 05.11.1981, Rati Ram etc. (Appellants
in RSA-1297-1987) moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to
implead them as a party to the suit, by submitting that they had purchased
2/3rd share in the land of village Kasni Kalan (suit land) from the defendants
of the case i.e. from respective legal heirs of Hira and Sheo Chand, by virtue
of sale deeds dated 03.06.1980 and 25.08.1981. By holding that application
has been moved to delay the disposal of the case and that applicants were
aware about the pendency of the case, the said application was dismissed vide
order dated 06.11.1981 (available at page No.431 of trial Court record at
DMS) i.e., the same day, when suit was dismissed.
Findings of Trial court:
10. Ld. trial Court took issues No.1 to 4 together for discussion and
on the basis of evidence held that plaintiffs were in exclusive possession of
the suit land of village Kasni Kalan; that family partition deeds dated
06.06.1955 (Ex.P1) and dated 25.03.1957 (Ex.P2) were duly proved on record
and by virtue thereof, plaintiffs had become exclusive owner of the suit land
of village Kasni Kalan. As such, all these issues were decided in favour of the
plaintiffs. Issues No. 5, 7, 9 and 10 were disposed of not pressed for; whereas,
findings on issue No.6 & 8 went against the defendants. Consequent to all
these findings, suit was decreed on 6.11.1981 by declaring the plaintiffs to be
owners in possession of the suit land of village Kasni Kalan and that
defendants do not have any right, title or interest therein. The judgment to this
effect was followed by decree of the even date.
Appeals before First Appellate Court:
6 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
11.1 Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, two appeals were
preferred. One of the appeals (registered as CA No.4-13 of 1982/1986) was
preferred by defendants No.3 to 5 i.e. three of the sons of Hira son of Dhanna
by impleading the plaintiffs as contesting respondents and remaining
defendants as proforma respondents.
11.2 The second appeal (registered as CA No.7-13/5-13 of 1982/1986)
was filed by Rati Ram etc. i.e. subsequent vendees from the original
defendants by arraying all the parties to the suit i.e. plaintiffs as well as
defendants as respondents to the appeal.
11.3 Rati Ram etc. also moved an application for leave to appeal, as
they were aggrieved and affected parties by the impugned judgment of the
trial Court. They moved yet another application for production of documents -
mutations No.293 & 294, rejected by the Revenue Officer on 19.11.1960.
11.4 Ld. First Appellate Court, by way of two separate judgments,
both dated 21.10.1986, dismissed both the appeals.
Present RSAs:
12.1 Now RSA No.1296 of 1987 has been filed by Richhpal etc. i.e.
some of the legal heirs of defendants Hira son of Dhanna; whereas, RSA
No.1297 of 1987 has been filed by the subsequent vendees Rati Ram etc.
12.2 In RSA No.1296 of 1987, the following substantial questions of
law, as filed by the appellants, were taken on record on 15.05.2013:-
1. Whether the judgments and decrees of both Courts below are liable to
be set aside on the ground that inadmissible evidence has been relied
upon?
7 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
2. Whether both the Courts below have erred in relying upon the alleged
partition deeds, Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2, which being unregistered, are
inadmissible in evidence?
3. Whether both the Courts below could have even relied upon the
alleged private partition, which was neither got approved by the
Revenue Authorities nor reflected in the Revenue Records?
4. Whether both the Courts below have erred in overlooking the vital fact
that all the parties are not signatories to the alleged partition deed, Ex.
P-1?
5. Whether the Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit of the
plaintiff appellant without impleading the subsequent vendees of the
land in dispute who purchased the land for valuable consideration?
6. Whether the finding of both courts below are liable to be set aside
being based on conjectures and surmises and inadmissible evidence?
12.3 In RSA No.1297 of 1987, the following substantial questions of
law, as filed by the appellants, were taken on record on 15.05.2013:-
1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred gravely in dismissing the
appeal filed by the present appellants i.e. the subsequent vendees on
hyper technical grounds?
2. Whether the Appellate Court acted erroneously in not treating the
appeal by the subsequent vendees as an appeal against the order dated
06.11.1981 dismissing their under application Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as
the decree was also passed on the same date?
3. Whether the Trial Court committed a grave error in dismissing the
application filed by the present appellants i.e. the subsequent vendees
under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as parties to the suit
since they had purchased the land in dispute for a valuable
consideration of Rs. 94,000/-?
4. Whether both the Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit of the
plaintiff respondent without impleading and hearing the subsequent
vendees of the land in dispute?
8 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
5. Whether the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are
liable to be set aside, being based on mere conjectures, surmises and
inadmissible evidence?
Contentions on behalf of appellants of both the appeals:
13.1 It is argued by ld. Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellants that alleged partition deeds Ex.P1 & P2 are inadmissible in
evidence, being unregistered documents. Ld. Senior counsel has drawn
attention of this Court to the contents of both the documents Ex.P1 & P2 so as
to contend that rights were purported to be created in favour of the plaintiffs
by way of these documents in praesenti and that it is not a case of recognizing
the antecedents right of the plaintiffs. Besides `400/- is alleged to have been
paid in Ex.P1; whereas `600/- is alleged to have been paid in Ex.P2 and
therefore, these documents evidencing transfer involving immoveable
property of more than `100/-, in praesenti and not recording alleged earlier
partition/ family settlement, were required to be compulsory registered and in
the absence thereof, the documents could not be taken into consideration
being inadmissible. To support the contention, Ld. senior counsel referred to a
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Siromani and another Vs.
Hemkumar and others, 1968 SC 1299; besides decisions of this Court
rendered in Sarimati Shanti Devi and another Vs. Jagdish Parshad and
another, 1986(1) PLR 26 and Chander Shekhar and others Vs. Des Raj and
others, 1983 Rev. L.R. 103.
13.2 It is further contended by ld. Senior counsel that the alleged
private partition, pertaining to the agricultural land, cannot be considered at
all, as the same were neither approved by the revenue authorities nor were
ever reflected in the revenue record. In support of this contention, ld. counsel
9 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
referred to a decision of this Court rendered in Suba Singh Vs. Mohinder
Singh and others, 1983 PLJ 429. It is also pointed out that mutations No.293
& 294 entered on the basis of the alleged partition deeds Ex.P1 & P2 were
rejected by the revenue officers on 09.11.1960. These documents were sought
to be produced in additional evidence before the First Appellant Court by the
vendees-appellants, but the application was erroneously dismissed.
13.2 Still further, ld. Senior counsel has drawn attention towards the
fact that Ex.P1 is signed only by Sheo Chand and Ranjit. The other sons of
Hazari namely, Matu Ram, Ami Lal and Surja are not parties to this document
and that it is not the case of any of the parties that Ranjit had signed the same
on behalf of his minor brothers or as a Karta.
13.3 Further contention of ld. Senior counsel is that all the co-owners
are assumed to be in joint possession of the entire joint land and that exclusive
possession cannot be delivered except by partition and that even if plaintiffs
are in exclusive possession of the suit land of village Kasni Kalan, the said
possession is on behalf of all the co-sharers. Ld. counsel has referred to a Full
Bench decision of this Court rendered in Bhartu Vs. Ram Sarup and a
decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pokhar (dead) by Lrs and
others Vs. Ram Singh, JT 2001(10) SC110.
13.4 In addition to above said common contentions pertaining to both
the appeals, ld. Senior Counsel also contends on behalf of the appellants-Rati
Ram etc. that their application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was wrongly
rejected by the trial Court, as being the transferee pendente lite, they should
have been impleaded as a party. By making reference to a decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak
10 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
Builders and Investors Private Limited and others, (2013) 5 Supreme Court
Cases 397, it is contended that a transferee is required to be made a party,
even if the transfer is in breach of injunction order and that rights of the
transferee will of course be subject to the outcome of the litigation.
13.5 Ld. senior counsel contends that First Appellate Court wrongly
held that appellants-Rati Ram etc. should have filed separate appeal against
the order dated 06.11.1981, whereby their application under Order 1 Rule 10
CPC was dismissed, inasmuch as a person, not a party to the decree, can
appeal with the leave of the Court, if he is prejudicially affected by the
judgment. Reference in this regard is made to State of Punjab (now Haryana)
& others Vs. Amar Singh and another, 1974 SC 994, Ram Janam Singh Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another, JT 1994(1) SC 187 and Hardevinder
Singh Vs. Paramjit Singh and others, 2013 (9) SCC 261.
13.6 Ld. senior counsel contends further that application moved by
these appellants-subsequent vendees to produce mutations No.293 and 294
dated 19.11.1960 has also been wrongly rejected because these mutations
were public documents being part of revenue record, the genuineness of which
was beyond any doubt and these are relevant to decide the real issue and
controversy. To support this contention, reference is made to a decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and another
Vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and others, 1994 (4) SCC 659 and a decision of
this Court rendered in Pirbhu Dayal & others Vs. Prem Dass Chela Kishan
Lal and others, 1994 PLJ 713.
11 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
13.7 With all the above submissions, Ld. senior counsel has prayed for
setting aside the judgments of the Courts below; and to dismiss the suit filed
by the plaintiffs-contesting respondents.
Contentions for contesting respondents - plaintiffs:
14.1 Refuting the aforesaid contentions, ld. counsel appearing for the
respondents-plaintiffs contends that suit property had come to the share of the
plaintiffs by way of family settlement evidenced from Ex.P1 & P2, which has
been rightly relied upon by the Courts below. Ld. counsel contends that Ex.P1
& P2 are in respect of a family partition, which had already taken place and
therefore, these documents did not require any registration. Ld. counsel refers
to decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Kale and others Vs.
Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1976 AIR (Supreme Court)
807, Korukonda Chalapathi Rao and another Vs. Korukonda Annapurna
Sampath Kumar, 2021(4) RCR (Civil) 433 and Ravinder Kaur Grewal and
others Vs. Manjit Kaur and others, 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 393 and decisions
of this Court rendered in Tarlok Chand Vs. Vijay Kumar, 1993(1) RRR 115
and Paramjit Singh Vs. Lakhwinder Kaur and another, 2022(2) PLR 22.
14.2 Still further, it is argued that application of subsequent vendees
Rati Ram etc. was rightly rejected by the trial Court and that they being
subsequent vendees, are bound by the outcome of the litigation, as the sale
deeds in their favour are hit by the principle of lis pendence contained in
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 1882.
14.3 Ld. counsel further submits that the High Court, in the Regular
Second Appeal, cannot upset the findings of fact as recorded by the Courts
below. Ld. counsel referred to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered
12 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
in Narayanan Rajendran and another Vs. Lekshmy Sarojini and others,
2009(2) RCR (Civil) 286.
Prayer is made for dismissal of both the appeals.
15. I have considered submissions of both the parties and have
appraised the record.
Analysis by this court:
A. Admissibility of Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 - purported family settlements -
Effect of Non-registration -
16. As noticed earlier that it is undisputed that on the death of
Dhanna, his three sons Hazari, Hira and Sheo Chand inherited the land of two
villages i.e., Kasni Kalan and Kalali in equal share. Plaintiffs, the children of
Hazari, claim to be exclusive owner in possession of the land of village Kasni
Kalan in view of the purported family partitions Ex.P1 & P2. Undisputedly,
both these documents Ex.P1 & P2 are unregistered. By way of Ex.P1, Sheo
Chand, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.6 to 15, purported to have
transferred his share in the land of village Kasni Kalan in favour of Ranjit son
of Hazari, who in turn relinquished his rights in favour of Sheo Chand in
respect of the land of village Kalali.
17. As rightly pointed out by ld. senior counsel for the appellants, the
bare perusal of Ex.P1 would reveal that this document has been executed only
between Ranjit son of Hazari on one hand; and Sheo Chand son of Dhanna on
the other hand. The other sons of Hazari Ram i.e. plaintiffs No.2 to 4, namely,
Matu Ram, Ami Lal and Surja are not the parties/signatories to this document.
Still further, as per this document Ex.P1, Ranjit relinquished his right in the
13 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
land of village Kalali besides house property and also gave `400/- to Sheo
Chand; and Sheo Chand relinquished his right in the land of Kasni Kalan in
favour of Ranjit. There is no mention that Ranjit was acting as karta on behalf
of his other brothers i.e. Matu Ram, Ami Lal and Surja. There is no mention
as to whether the other sons of Hazari i.e. Matu Ram, Ami Lal and Surja were
minors or major at that time. There is only reference that this decision is
consented to by Matu Ram, Ami Lal and Surja, without there being any
signatures of them.
18. Further, the most important point to be noted in the said
document Ex.P1 is the recital to the effect that 'from now on' Ranjit will be
owner of the land of village Kasni Kalan and Sheo Chand will be owner of the
land of village Kalali. Document Ex.P1 also contains the statement of Sheo
Chand to the effect that he has now no right in the land of village Kasni
Kalan, as in lieu thereof he has received `400/- and has made Ranjit as owner
of the land of village Kasni Kalan. Similarly, there is a statement of Ranjit, as
per which, he will have no right in the land of village Kalali, as he has
relinquished his right in the said land of Kalali in favour of his paternal uncle
Sheo Chand. These recitals in Ex.P1, particularly the word 'ab se' (from now
on) will make it abundantly clear that family settlement was in praesenti and
it was not a memorandum in respect of any previous arrangement.
19. Similarly, Ex.P2, the purported family partition dated 25.03.1957
is between plaintiffs on one hand i.e. sons of Hazari; and legal heirs of Hira
i.e. defendants No.1 to 5 on the other hand. In this document also, it is
mentioned that plaintiffs have relinquished their rights in the land of village
Kalali; whereas defendants No.1 to 5 have relinquished their right in the land
14 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
of village Kasni Kalan in favour of Ranjit etc. i.e. sons of Hazari. This
document also shows that Ranjit etc. paid an amount of `600/- to Amar Singh
etc. in the presence of Panchayat in lieu of land of village Kasni Kalan. This
document also specifically mentions the word 'Aaj' i.e. today, clearly
indicating that it is from the date of execution of this document that plaintiffs
would be exclusive owner of land of village Kasni Kalan and defendants No.1
to 5 will be the exclusive owner of land of village Kalali.
20. Thus, both the documents Ex.P1 & P2 create the right in favour
of plaintiffs in respect of the land of village Kasni Kalan in respect of
respective shares of Sheo Chand and that of legal heirs of Hira in praesenti.
These documents do not reflect that these were executed as a memorandum of
family settlement in respect of some earlier disputes. Both the documents are
unregistered.
21. In the case of Kale and others (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court
explained the principles regarding necessity of registration of a family
settlement. It was held as under:-
"10. In other words to put the binding effect and the essentials of a family
settlement in a concretised form, the matter may be reduced into the form of the
following propositions:
(1) The family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family
disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of
properties between the various members of the family.
(2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by
fraud, coercion or undue influence;
(3) The family arrangements may be even oral in which case no registration
is necessary,
(4) It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of
the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction
15 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a
family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum
prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the
purpose of the record or for information of the court for making necessary
mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or
extinguish any rights in immoveable properties and therefore does not fall
within the mischief of Section 17 (2) (sic) (Section 17 (1) (b) ?) of the
Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable;
(5) The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have
some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property
which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the
parties to the settlement has not title but under the arrangement the other
party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and
acknowledges him to be the sole owners, then the antecedent title must be
assured and the family arrangement will be upheld and the Courts will find
no difficulty in giving assent to the same;
(6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve
legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and
equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the
settlement.
11. The principles indicated above have been clearly enunciated and adroitly
adumbrated in a long course of decisions of this Court as also those of the Privy
Council and other High Courts."
22 The above said principles explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court
would make it quite clear that family settlement should be bona fide, so as to
resolve family disputes and rival claims, by way of a fair and equitable
division or allotment of properties between various members of the family.
23. Whether the documents Ex.P1 & P2 show fair and equitable
division of allotment of properties between the parties. The answer to this
question is a big NO. The land of village Kasni Kalan is 142 Bigha 11 Biswa,
in which one son of Dhanna is getting exclusive right; whereas the land in
village Kalali is 36 Bigha 8 Biswa, in which two sons of Dhanna (through
their respective descendants) are getting the rights i.e. to the extent of 18
16 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
Bigha 4 Biswa each. Meaning thereby, if Ex.P1 and P2 are accepted, one son
of Dhanna is getting 142 Bigha 11 Biswa of land of one village; whereas 2
other sons of Dhanna through their respective descendants are getting 18
Bigha 4 Biswa each only of the land in other village. By no stretch of
imagination, the said settlement can be stated to be a fair and equitable
division of allotment of the properties.
24. Assuming for the sake of arguments that Sheo Chand by way of
Ex.P1; and legal heirs of Hira by way of Ex.P2 accepted `400/- and `600/-
respectively in lieu of their excess share in the land of village Kasni Kalan,
still Ex.P1 & P2 cannot be admitted in evidence for the simple reason that
these documents creates rights in praesenti for the first time in the immovable
property and therefore, both these documents required to be compulsorily
registered.
25. Even in the case of Kale and others (supra), relied by Ld.
counsel for the respondents, Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that
registration would be necessary, if terms of family settlement are reduced into
writing; and that distinction was required to be made between a document
containing the term and recitals of the family arrangement made under the
document; and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement
had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for the
information of the Court for making necessary mutation and that in such a
case, when the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in
immoveable property, the same will not be compulsorily registerable.
26. Similarly, in Korukonda Chalapathi Rao's case (supra), relied
upon by Ld. counsel for the respondents, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme
17 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
Court that when document does not purport to, by itself create, declare, assign,
extinguish or limit right in properties and that such a family settlement
document merely records past transaction, the same does not require
compulsory registration and that the same is admissible. Similar position is
explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal's
case (supra).
27. However, in the present case, the documents Ex.P1 and P2
created rights for the first time in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the
shares of the Sheo Chand; and sons of Hira, so the documents required to be
compulsorily registered.
28. In Siromani vs. Hemkumar (supra), it has been clearly held by
Hon'ble Supreme Court that when the document effects partition of the joint
family properties of the value of more than `100/- by metes and bounds,
registration is compulsory and in the absence of registration, it is inadmissible
to prove title of any of the co-parceners to any of the property. In the case of
Sarimati Shanti Devi and another (supra), it has been held by this Court that
when by virtue of the writing, a person was made the exclusive owner of the
house, while he was divested of his rights in all other properties, that writing
required compulsory registration.
Both the above cited authorities are squarely applicable to the
facts of the present case.
29. Ld. trial Court as well as First Appellate Court clearly fell in
error in admitting Ex.P1 & P2 in evidence by treating the same as the
documents evidencing family partition. The observation of the First Appellate
Court to the effect that Ex.P1 and P2 were reduced into writing regarding the
18 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
previous family settlement arrived between the parties and therefore, these did
not require registration, is clearly the result of misreading of the documents, as
it has been observed above that both Ex.P1 & P2 made it clear that the
documents created rights in praesenti. As such, these were required to be
compulsorily registered.
B. Private Partition - non-approval of Revenue Officer - Effect thereof -
30. Proceeding further, apart from the fact that documents Ex.P1 &
P2 are inadmissible in evidence on account of these being unregistered
documents, the alleged family partition was liable to be ignored for another
reason.
31. Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, provides for
application to be moved before the revenue officer for partition of his share in
the land by any joint owner. The subsequent provisions lay down the
procedure to effect the partition. Section 123 of the Punjab Land Revenue
Act, 1887 is relevant in this case, as it provides about affirmation of partition
privately effected. It reads as under: -
"123. Affirmation of partition privately affected: In any case in which a partition
has been made without the intervention of a Revenue-officer, and party thereto may
apply to a Revenue-officer for an order affirming the partition".
32. It is only after the affirmation by the concerned Revenue Officer
of the partition effected privately by the co sharers, that it is considered to
have come into force. In the case of Suba Singh (supra), it has been held by
this Court that partition of the agricultural land outside the Court i.e., private
partition becomes valid, only if same is brought to the notice of the revenue
authorities and sanction is obtained and thereafter, Khata is divided, otherwise
19 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
co-sharers continued to be joint owners in the same Khata. It was held as
under: -
"The partition of agricultural land is governed by section 111 onwards of the Punjab
Land Revenue Act. A reading of this Chapter shows that even if agricultural land is
stated to be partitioned outside the Court that partition becomes valid only if the
same is brought to the notice of the revenue authorities and sanction is obtained and
only thereafter the Khatas are divided. Other- wise, they continue to be joint owners
in the same Khara."
33. In the present case, plaintiffs nowhere pleaded that they had ever
applied to the revenue officer for sanctioning of the mutation based on the
alleged private partition effected amongst the parties by virtue of Ex.P1 and
Ex.P2.
C. Additional Evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC -
34. The subsequent vendees Rati Ram etc. had moved an application
before the First Appellate Court under Order 41 rule 27 CPC to produce the
copies of two mutations No.293 and 294, which were entered on the basis of
two family partitions Ex.P1 & P2, but these were rejected on 19.11.1960.
Unfortunately, the application was dismissed by the First Appellate Court by
going into the technicalities of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and without even
bothering to see that these documents were public documents, which could not
have been subsequently created and so, the authenticity thereof could not be
doubted.
35. In Pirbhu Dayal's case (supra), additional evidence was sought
to be produced in second appeal during the course of arguments. The
documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence were
certified copies of Jamabandis, certified copies of statement of tenancy rights
and copies of two mutations qua the suit land. By holding that these
20 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
documents could not be procured or manipulated and that Court required the
documents with a view to decide contentious issue between the parties, it was
held by this court that non-filing of the same at the earliest in point of time or
later, was wholly meaningless.
36. In present case, perusal of mutation No.293 would reveal that it
pertains to the land of village Kasni Kalan, whereby 1/3rd share of Sheo Chand
in the said land was sought to be mutated in favour of plaintiffs of the case
i.e., Ranjit etc. sons of Hazari. Though the mutation was initially sanctioned
by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, on 31.05.1959, but objections were
raised by Sheo Chand and ultimately, vide order dated 09.11.1960, Assistant
Collector First Grade, Camp at Hansi, rejected the mutation. Similarly,
mutation No.294, in respect of share of legal heirs of Hazari in the land of
village Kasni Kalan, sought to be transferred in favour of plaintiffs, was
rejected on 09.11.1960.
37. The aforesaid documents i.e., mutation No.293 and 294 both
dated 09.11.1960, would make it quite clear that the revenue authorities never
approved the private partition purported to have been effected amongst the
parties by way of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Even if these documents i.e. mutations
No.293 & 294 are kept out of consideration and not taken into account, the
Jamabandis, as available on record, in respect of the land of both the villages
would clearly show that all the three lines of Dhanna are still shown to be co-
owners in possession of the land of the two villages. Said factual position is
disputed before this court. All these circumstances clearly indicate that private
partition allegedly effected amongst the parties vide Ex.P1 & P2 was neither
implemented nor was approved by the revenue authorities.
21 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
D. Rights of Co-sharers -
38. Simply because plaintiffs are recorded to be in exclusive
possession of the suit land of village Kasni Kalan, would not make them
exclusive owner over the said land. It has been made clear by a Full Bench of
this Court in the case of Bhartu (supra) that possession of joint property by
one co-owner, is in the eyes of law, possession of all, even if all but one are
actually out of possession. The inter se rights and liabilities of the co-sharers
as settled by the Division Bench of this Court in Sant Ram Nagina Ram Vs.
Daya Ram Nagina Ram, AIR 1961 Punjab 528, were duly approved in
Bhartu's case by holding:
(1) A co-owner has an interest in the whole property and also in every parcel of
it.
(2) Possession of joint property by one co-owner, is in the eye of law,
possession of all even if all but one are actually out of possession.
(3) A mere occupation of a larger portion or even of an entire joint property
does not necessarily amount to ouster as the possession of one is deemed to be on
behalf of all.
(4) The above rule admits of an exception when there is ouster of a co-owner by
another. But in order to negative the presumption of joint possession on behalf of
all, on the ground of ouster, the possession of a co-owner must not only be
exclusive but also hostile to the knowledge of the other as, when a co-owner openly
asserts his own title and denies that of the other.
(5) Passage of time does not extinguish the right of the co-owner who has been
out of possession of the joint property except in the event of ouster or abandonment.
(6) Every co-owner has a right to use the joint property in a husband like
manner not inconsistent with similar rights of other co-owners.
(7) Where a co-owner is in possession of separate parcels under an arrangement
consented by the other co-owners, it is not open to any body to disturb the
arrangement without the consent of others except by filing a suit for partition."
22 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
The above said authority of the full bench of this court in the case of Bhartu
(supra) was approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pokhar (dead) by Lrs
and others (supra).
39. Thus, looking from any angle, the findings of the Courts below
on issue No.1 to 4 cannot be sustained. Finding on issues No.1 & 2 are
reversed by holding that alleged partition dated 06.06.1955 (Ex.P1) and
25.05.1957 (Ex.P2) are not admissible in evidence. These documents cannot
be taken into account so as to hold the private partition. It is further held that
parties are co-sharers in possession of the suit land of village Kasni Kalan as
well as of the land of village Kalali. On issue No.3, it is held that possession
of the plaintiffs on the suit land of village Kasni Kalan is in the capacity of
co-sharer and not as exclusive owner. Issue No.4 is decided in favour of the
defendants by holding that the entries of the revenue record showing them to
be co-sharers in the suit land, are correct.
E. Impleadment as party of Transferee Pendente lite -
40. Proceeding further, it has not been disputed before this Court that
during pendency of the suit before the trial Court, all the defendants i.e.,
descendants of Hira as well as Sheo Chand had sold their respective shares in
suit land of village Kasni Kalan i.e., their 2/3 share in the suit land in favour
of appellants of RSA N: 1297-1987 i.e., Rati Ram etc. vide sale deeds dated
06.06.1980 and 25.08.1981. They had moved an application to be impleaded
as party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC on 05.11.1981 before the trial
court, but the same was dismissed on 06.11.1981 and on the very same day,
the suit was decreed. These appellants i.e. subsequent vendees did not get the
opportunity to challenge the order dated 06.11.1981, whereby their application
23 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
to be impleaded as a party, was dismissed, by filing separate appeal and as
such, the observation made by the First Appellate Court to the effect that these
appellants should have filed an independent appeal against the order dated
06.11.1981, is without any merit.
41. The question is that whether Rati Ram etc. - transferee pendente
lite should have been impleaded as a party to the suit? The scope of Order 1
Rule 10 CPC and that of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC was discussed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Thomson Press (India) Limited vs. Nank Builders case
(supra), wherein it was observed as under:
"54..........A simple reading of the above provision (O.1 R.10) would show
that in cases of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the
pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or
against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved.
What has troubled us is whether independent of Order I Rule 10 CPC the
prayer for addition made by the appellant could be considered in the light of
the above provisions and, if so, whether the appellant could be added as a
party-defendant to the suit. Our answer is in the affirmative. It is true that the
application which the appellant made was only under Order I Rule 10 CPC
but the enabling provision of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC could always be
invoked if the fact situation so demanded. It was in any case not urged by
counsel for the respondents that Order XXII Rule 10 could not be called in
aid with a view to justifying addition of the appellant as a party-defendant.
Such being the position all that is required to be examined is whether a
transferee pendente lite could in a suit for specific performance be added as a
party defendant and, if so, on what terms.
55. We are not on virgin ground in so far as that question is concerned.
Decisions of this Court have dealt with similar situations and held that a
transferee pendente lite can be added as a party to the suit lest the transferee
suffered prejudice on account of the transferor losing interest in the litigation
post transfer. In Khemchand Shanker Choudhary v. Vishnu Hari Patil
(1983) 1 SCC 18, this Court held that
24 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
"6. the position of a person on whom any interest has devolved on
account of a transfer during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding is
somewhat similar to the position of an heir or a legatee of a party who dies
during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding......."
Any such heir, legatee or transferee cannot be turned away when she applies
for being added as a party to the suit. The following passage in this regard is
apposite:
"6... Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act no doubt lays down that a
transferee pendente lite of an interest in an immovable property which is the
subject matter of a suit from any of the parties to the suit will be bound in so
far as that interest is concerned by the proceedings in the suit. Such a
transferee is a representative in interest of the party from whom he has
acquired that interest. Rule 10 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure
clearly recognises the right of a transferee to be impleaded as a party to the
proceedings and to be heard before any order is made. It may be that if he
does not apply to be impleaded, he may suffer by default on account of any
order passed in the proceedings. But if he applies to be impleaded as a party
and to be heard, he has got to be so impleaded and heard. He can also prefer
an appeal against an order made in the said proceedings but with the leave
of the appellate court where he is not already brought on record. The
position of a person on whom any interest has devolved on account of a
transfer during the pendency of any suit or a proceeding is somewhat similar
to the position of an heir or a legatee of a party who dies during the
pendency of a suit or a proceeding, or an official receiver who takes over the
assets of such a party on his insolvency. An heir or a legatee or an official
receiver or a transferee can participate in the execution proceedings even
though their names may not have been shown in the decree, preliminary or
final. If they apply to the court to be impleaded as parties they cannot be
turned out." (emphasis supplied)
56. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Amit Kumar Shaw v.
Farida Khatoon (2005) 11 SCC 403 where this Court held that a transferor
pendente lite may not even defend the title properly as he has no interest in
the same or collude with the plaintiff in which case the interest of the
purchaser pendente lite will be ignored. To avoid such situations the
transferee pendente lite can be added as a party defendant to the case
provided his interest is substantial and not just peripheral. This is particularly
so where the transferee pendente lite acquires interest in the entire estate that
forms the subject matter of the dispute. This Court observed:
25 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
"16... The doctrine of lis pendens applies only where the lis is pending
before a court. Further pending the suit, the transferee is not entitled as of
right to be made a party to the suit, though the court has a discretion to make
him a party. But the transferee pendente lite can be added as a proper party
if his interest in the subject-matter of the suit is substantial and not just
peripheral. A transferee pendente lite to the extent he has acquired interest
from the Defendant is vitally interested in the litigation, where the transfer is
of the entire interest of the Defendant; the latter having no more interest in
the property may not properly defend the suit. He may collude with the
Plaintiff. Hence, though the Plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis
pendens transferee a party, under Order 22 Rule 10 an alienee pendente lite
may be joined as party. As already noticed, the court has discretion in the
matter which must be judicially exercised and an alienee would ordinarily
be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interests. The Court has held
that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in immovable property is a
representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired that
interest. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings
where the transferee pendente lite is made a party to the litigation; he is
entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case"
(emphasis supplied)
To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Rikhu Dev, Chela Bawa
Harjug Dass v. Som Dass (deceased) through his Chela Shiama Dass,
(1976) 1 SCC 103."
42. Adverting to the facts of present case, the defendants lost interest
in the litigation after transferring their rights in the suit property to Rati Ram
etc., as is evident from the fact that no evidence whatsoever was produced by
them to support their case or to controvert the case of plaintiffs. As observed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court, transferor pendente lite may not even defend the
title properly as he has no interest in the same or collude with the plaintiff, in
which case the interest of the purchaser pendente lite will be ignored. To
avoid such situations, the transferee pendente lite can be added as a party
defendant to the case provided his interest is substantial and not just
peripheral.
26 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
43. Therefore, once it had been brought to the notice of the court that
applicants Rati Ram etc. had already purchased share of defendants in the suit
property and they moved an application to be impleaded as a party, the court
should have impleaded them as party to the suit, without going into the
technicalities as to under which provision or at what stage, the application had
been moved, so as to give them the opportunity to watch their interests, lest
such transferee (Rati Ram etc in this case) suffered prejudice on account of
the transferor losing interest in the litigation post transfer. Of course, they
could not be allowed to take a stand, contrary to their transferor - defendants.
F. Right to file appeal by third party -
44. Moving ahead, even if Rati Ram etc. - appellants of RSA-1297-
1987 were not allowed to be impleaded as a party to the suit, these subsequent
vendees had the right to file the independent appeal with leave of the Court, as
they are affected by the decision of this lis, in which they are not the party.
Reliance in this regard can be placed on State of Punjab (now Haryana) vs.
Amar Singh (AIR 1974 SC 994), wherein it was held by Hon'ble Supreme
Court as under:-
"The ordinary rule is that only a party to a suit adversely affected by the decree or
any of his representatives-in- interest may file an appeal. Under such circumstances
a person who is not a party may prefer an appeal with the leave of the appellate
court "if he would be prejudicially affected by the judgment and if it would be
binding on him as res-judicata under Explanation 6 to Section 11."
45. Similarly, in the case of Ram Janam Singh (supra), it has been
held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that a person, not a party to the lis, affected
by a judgment of the High Court, can file an SLP or review.
27 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
46. In the present case, the appellants-Rati Ram etc. having
purchased the rights of the defendants in the suit land during pendency of the
suit, it is obvious that defendants i.e., descendants of Sheo Chand and Hira
had lost interest in the litigation and it is probably because of this reason they
did not take any interest in the litigation, once the case reached at the stage of
defendants' evidence. Had the defendants taken the interest and had they
simply produced in evidence mutation Nos. 293 and 294 rejected on
09.11.1960 by ACIG as has been referred earlier, the Court would have come
to know that the family partitions relied upon by the plaintiffs, had never been
approved by the revenue authorities and had been rather, specifically rejected.
47. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by
Rati Ram etc. before the First Appellate Court is held to be maintainable and
the order of appellate Court, dismissing the appeal only on the ground of
maintainability, cannot be sustained.
G. Effect of the transfer pendente lite -
48. The next question is that as to how far the outcome of the
litigation is binding on the transferees pendente lite. This aspect has also been
discussed in Thomson Press (India) Limited vs. Nank Builders case (supra),
wherein explaining the effect of the transfer pendente lite under Section 52 of
the Transfer of Property Act, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"49..........The legal position in this regard is also fairly well settled. A
transfer pendente lite is not illegal ipso jure but remains subservient to the
pending litigation. In Nagubai Ammal & Ors. v. B. Shama Rao & Ors. AIR
1956 SC 593, this Court while interpreting Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act observed:
"...The words "so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any
decree or order which may be made therein", make it clear that the transfer
28 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
is good except to the extent that it might conflict with rights decreed under
the decree or order. It is in this view that transfers pendente lite have been
held to be valid and operative as between the parties thereto."
50. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Vinod Seth v. Devinder
Bajaj (2010) 8 SCC 1 where this Court held that Section 52 does not render
transfers affected during the pendency of the suit void but only render such
transfers subservient to the rights as may be eventually determined by the
Court. The following passage in this regard is apposite:
"42. It is well settled that the doctrine of lis pendens does not annul the
conveyance by a party to the suit, but only renders it subservient to the
rights of the other parties to the litigation. Section 52 will not therefore
render a transaction relating to the suit property during the pendency of the
suit void but render the transfer inoperative insofar as the other parties to the
suit. Transfer of any right, title or interest in the suit property or the
consequential acquisition of any right, title or interest, during the pendency
of the suit will be subject to the decision in the suit."
51. The decision of this Court in A. Nawab John & Ors. v. V.N.
Subramanyam (2012) 7 SCC 738 is a recent reminder of the principle of law
enunciated in the earlier decisions. This Court in that case summed up the
legal position thus:
"18 ........The mere pendency of a suit does not prevent one of the parties
from dealing with the property constituting the subject- matter of the suit.
The section only postulates a condition that the alienation will in no manner
affect the rights of the other party under any decree which may be passed in
the suit unless the property was alienated with the permission of the court."
52. We may finally refer to the decision of this Court in Jayaram
Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami and Ors. (1972) 2 SCC 200 in which were extracted
with approval observations made on the doctrine of lis pendens in
"Commentaries of Laws of Scotland, by Bell". This Court said:
"43...........Bell, in his commentaries on the Laws of Scotland said that it
was grounded on the maxim: "Pendente lite nibil innovandum". He
observed:
It is a general rule which seems to have been recognised in all regular
systems of jurisprudence, that during the pendence of an action, of which
the object is to vest the property or obtain the possession of real estate, a
29 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
purchaser shall be held to take that estate as it stands in the person of the
seller, and to be bound by the claims which shall ultimately be pronounced."
53. There is, therefore, little room for any doubt that the transfer of the suit
property pendente lite is not void ab initio and that the purchaser of any such
property takes the bargain subject to the rights of the plaintiff in the pending
suit. Although the above decisions do not deal with a fact situation where the
sale deed is executed in breach of an injunction issued by a competent Court,
we do not see any reason why the breach of any such injunction should
render the transfer whether by way of an absolute sale or otherwise
ineffective. The party committing the breach may doubtless incur the liability
to be punished for the breach committed by it but the sale by itself may
remain valid as between the parties to the transaction subject only to any
directions which the competent Court may issue in the suit against the
vendor."
49. Thus, it is clear from the legal position as above that transfer
pendente lite is neither illegal nor void ab initio but remain subservient to the
rights eventually determined by the Court in pending litigation. As such, it is
held that appellants-Rati Ram etc., had the right to file the appeal but subject
to the condition that they will be bound by the final outcome of the decision of
the case, as they had purchased the suit property to the extent of share of the
defendants, during pendency of the suit.
H. Power of High Court to intervene -
50. Proceeding further, it is no doubt true that High Court has no
jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts
below, even if the High Court believed and satisfied that the Courts below
committed an error in recording the finding, as has been held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Narayanan Rajendran and another (supra).
51. However, in the present case, the question as to whether the
family settlements Ex.P1 & P2 could have been admitted in evidence, is not a
30 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
pure question of fact; rather, it is certainly a mixed question of law and facts,
as depending upon the contents of the family settlement, the effect of non-
registration is required to be looked into and it has been found by this Court
that as these documents created rights for the first time i.e., in praesenti in
favour of the plaintiffs, therefore, the documents required registration.
Similarly, the question as to whether the exclusive possession of the plaintiffs
over the suit land could be taken as a result of implementation of the family
partition; and the question as to whether the alleged family partition could
have been considered by the Court in the absence of approval of the revenue
authorities, are also the questions of law and as such, the contention of ld.
counsel for the respondents to the effect that this Court cannot intervene in the
findings, is rejected.
Conclusion/Result -
52. Consequent to the entire discussion above, both the appeals are
hereby allowed. The judgment and decree dated 21.10.1986 passed by the
First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.4-13 of 1982/1986 titled 'Richhpal
and others Vs. Ranjit and others, dismissing the appeal against judgment and
decree dated 06.11.1981 of the trial Court, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs
Ranjit etc. was decreed, are hereby set aside. Resultantly, the suit of the
plaintiffs Ranjit etc. is hereby dismissed.
53. As a result of dismissal of the said suit, it is held that plaintiffs
have only 1/3rd share in the suit land of village Kasni Kalan and similarly,
they have 1/3rd share in the land of village Kalali. Similarly, defendants i.e.
descendants of Hira and Sheo Chand sons of Dhanna have 2/3rd share (1/3rd
share each) in the land of both the villages. It is further held that as a result of
31 of 32
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049627
RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626
RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627
final outcome of this litigation, it is appellants Rati Ram etc., who had
purchased the rights of descendants of Hira and Shoe Chand, are now owners
of 2/3 share in the suit land i.e. land of village Kasni Kalan. Decree sheet be
prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
A photocopy of this judgment be placed on the file of connected
case.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
10.04.2024 JUDGE
Vivek
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? No
32 of 32
