2015 (9) TMI 1761 - HC - Indian Laws

Doctrine of lis pendens - Suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in actual physical possession of the suit land - HELD THAT - In view of the application for correction of khasra girdawaris in the disputed land, it would be unjust to record the findings as to who is prima-facie in the possession of the disputed property. The learned senior counsel for the revisionists has argued that all these transfers were made in order to avoid the losing of the land due to the tenancy law and the Land Ceiling Act. Some transfers were made by Sikandar Singh in favour of his father-in-law and mother-in-law. Even Selina and Poonam were given in adoption to save the land. All these matters are to be examined during trial. Therefore, at this stage, no findings can be recorded nor the allegations and counter allegations can be controverted. The first appellate Court has declined the relief on the ground that 'regarding possession of agriculture land and also regarding alienation of suit land, the doctrine of lis pendens will apply.' The doctrine of lis pendens is no substitute for the expressed order. In these circumstances, it is ordered that the parties shall maintain status quo regarding the possession over the disputed land till the disposal of suit. However, either party can adopt due course of law for correction of revenue entries or take possession. It is further ordered that any further alienation of the suit property can only be made by either party with the prior permission of the Court. The interest of justice requires that the case should be disposed of expeditiously, so that the plaintiffs are not benefitted by default i.e. on account of Surinder Kaur losing a battle for life during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, in consultation with the learned senior counsel for the parties, it was proposed that the case be made date bound - keeping in view the old age of defendant No. 1, the case shall be decided expeditiously. The plaintiffs shall be given 10 effective opportunities of one month duration each to conclude their evidence and similarly, the defendants shall also be given same number of opportunities of same duration. The present revision is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the order dated 19.8.2014 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala.
2. Modification of the order dated 28.5.2015 by the Additional District Judge, Patiala.
3. Claim of ownership and possession of the suit land by the plaintiffs.
4. Legality of various gift deeds, wills, transfer deeds, and civil court decrees.
5. Application of the doctrine of lis pendens.
6. Request for permanent injunction to restrain defendants from alienating or transferring the suit properties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the order dated 19.8.2014 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala:
The plaintiffs, who are the revisionists, challenged the dismissal of their application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, had dismissed their application, which sought temporary injunctions to restrain the defendants from alienating or transferring the suit properties.

2. Modification of the order dated 28.5.2015 by the Additional District Judge, Patiala:
The plaintiffs also sought modification of the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, which partially granted them relief by directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the possession of the farm house known as Nasirpur at Patiala. However, the remaining reliefs were declined, and the doctrine of lis pendens was applied.

3. Claim of ownership and possession of the suit land by the plaintiffs:
The plaintiffs, including minors, claimed ownership and actual physical possession of the suit land as sole surviving legal heirs of the deceased. They argued that the disputed properties were ancestral and coparcenary properties, inherited from their forefathers who owned land in Mont Gomery (now in West Pakistan). The plaintiffs claimed that various transfers and mutations in favor of the defendants were illegal, null, and void.

4. Legality of various gift deeds, wills, transfer deeds, and civil court decrees:
The plaintiffs challenged multiple transactions, including gift deeds, wills, transfer deeds, and civil court decrees, dating back to 1958. They alleged that these transactions were forged, fabricated, and executed without legal necessity or consideration. The plaintiffs contended that these transfers excluded their rights in the suit properties.

5. Application of the doctrine of lis pendens:
The appellate court applied the doctrine of lis pendens, which precludes parties from transferring or alienating the suit property during the pendency of litigation. The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to further relief of injunction regarding possession of agricultural land or alienation of the suit land, as the doctrine of lis pendens would apply.

6. Request for permanent injunction to restrain defendants from alienating or transferring the suit properties:
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating, transferring, mortgaging, or creating any charge over the suit properties and from dispossessing the plaintiffs from exclusive possession of the disputed properties.

Judgment Analysis:
The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs, including minors, challenged various transactions from 1958 onwards. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was ancestral and coparcenary property. However, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, Rajeev Inder Singh @ Pawandeep Singh, did not challenge these transactions during his lifetime. The court noted that the plaintiffs had an independent right to challenge the transactions.

The court highlighted that an application for correction of khasra girdawari was moved by the plaintiffs, and the khasra girdawaris were corrected in their favor before filing the suit. The court found it improper to record any prima-facie findings regarding possession of the disputed land at this stage, given the pending applications for correction of khasra girdawaris.

The court emphasized that the doctrine of lis pendens is no substitute for an expressed order. Therefore, the court ordered the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession of the disputed land until the disposal of the suit. Any further alienation of the suit property could only be made with prior permission of the court.

The court recognized the advanced age and health condition of defendant No. 1, Surinder Kaur, and ordered the case to be decided expeditiously. The plaintiffs and defendants were given 10 effective opportunities of one month duration each to conclude their evidence. The court directed that if either party failed to complete their evidence within the given opportunities, their evidence would be closed by orders.

Conclusion:
The revision was allowed, and the court ordered the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession of the disputed land. The case was directed to be decided expeditiously, with specific timelines for concluding evidence to ensure justice is served promptly.