1983 (4) TMI 297 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Suit for declaration dismissed by lower courts
- Contention regarding subsequent events leading to infructuous appeal
- Application for redemption of mortgaged land
- Interpretation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act

Analysis:

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership of a property they claimed to have acquired through prescription after the limitation for redemption expired. Both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed their suit, leading to a second appeal. During the appeal, the defendants filed an application citing subsequent events, specifically the redemption of the property by third parties. The Collector had allowed the redemption application, and the applicants were put in possession of the land. The plaintiffs' counsel argued that the transfer was hit by lis pendens, relying on case law. However, the defendants contended that the subsequent events were crucial and could affect the case's outcome, citing relevant case law as well.

The judge considered the arguments and case law presented by both parties. It was noted that the subsequent events, particularly the redemption of the property and the possession by the applicants, had a material bearing on the case. The judge referred to a case where courts were justified in considering such events for complete justice. Consequently, the appeal was deemed infructuous due to these subsequent events.

Regarding the interpretation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the judge explained that the provision did not apply in this case. The transfer of property in question was a result of the Collector's order under the Act, not a direct act by the parties. Since the plaintiffs did not challenge the Collector's order as required by the Act, it became conclusive. The judge emphasized that the transfer was not affected by lis pendens and that the subsequent events rendered the appeal infructuous. Thus, the appeal was dismissed, and the civil miscellaneous application was allowed.

In conclusion, the court held that the appeal failed due to the subsequent events, leading to its dismissal as infructuous. The judge made no order as to costs, and the civil miscellaneous application was allowed as per the judgment.