Back
2003 Supreme(Cal) 522
High Court Of Calcutta
KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Appellant
Versus
DELLTE PROPERTIES PVT.LTD - Respondent
G. A. 1152 Of 2001
Decided On : 10/29/2003
An order of status quo passed by the Court is binding not only on the parties but also on their assignees and transferees. Third parties who take possession of the suit premises in breach of the order of status quo are liable to be evicted on summary proceedings.
Headnote:
EVICTION - ORDER OF STATUS QUO - INTERIM INJUNCTION - THIRD PARTIES - POSSESSION - BREACH OF ORDER - SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS - LEGAL RIGHT TO OCCUPY - JURISDICTION OF COURT - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - SUBSEQUENT TRANSFEREES - BINDING EFFECT OF DECREE - EVICTION OF ILLEGAL OCCUPANTS - MAINTENANCE OF STATUS QUO - INHERENT POWER OF COURT - PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY - COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS - ENFORCEMENT OF EVICTION - ASSISTANCE OF LOCAL POLICE - COSTS OF POLICE ASSISTANCE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff bank entered into agreements with defendant No. 1 for purchase of five floors of a building. Defendant No. 1 failed to deliver possession or execute conveyance. Plaintiff took out an application for interlocutory relief for appointment of Receiver and injunction. Defendant No. 1 claimed to have sold and transferred the floors before the suit and delivered possession to purchasers. Justice Sen appointed Joint Special Officers to visit the floors and submit a report on possession. On 2nd January 1995, Justice Sen directed that no transfer will be effected in respect of the premises until further order of the Court. Special Officers submitted report on 20th December 1994 and it was found that certain persons were in possession of the floors. Plaintiff took out another interlocutory application for injunction, appointment of receivers, and eviction of a third party. Justice Mrs. Pal appointed Joint Receivers over the suit premises and directed them not to allow the status quo to be disturbed. On appeal, the order of Justice Mrs. Pal was affirmed. Plaintiff filed the present application alleging breach of the order of status quo and disturbance of possession of the Receivers.
Finding of the Court:
The order of status quo passed by Justice Sen was binding not only on the parties but also on their assignees and transferees. Defendant No. 1 had breached the order of status quo by transferring possession to third parties. The third parties who had taken possession in breach of the order of status quo were not bona fide purchasers for value without notice. The third parties were liable to be evicted on summary proceedings as they had no legal right to occupy the premises. The Court had inherent power to protect and preserve the property by appointing Receiver and evicting illegal occupants. The subsequent transferees during pendency of a suit for specific performance are not required to be brought in the suit by the plaintiffs as any decree passed in favor of the original defendant/transferor will automatically bind the subsequent transferee.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of status quo passed by Justice Sen was binding on the third parties? 2. Whether the third parties were bona fide purchasers for value without notice? 3. Whether the third parties were liable to be evicted on summary proceedings? 4. Whether the Court had jurisdiction to evict the third parties?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order of status quo passed by Justice Sen was binding not only on the parties but also on their assignees and transferees. The intention of the Court was to prevent transfer of any portion of the suit premises. The transfer has been effected in favor of the present occupants after the orders of status quo and injunction are passed and are therefore in derogation and violation of the said orders too. As such no right could lawfully be nor indeed was created In favor of the third party occupants in breach of the order of status quo. 2. The third parties were not bona fide purchasers for value without notice. They had specific knowledge of pendency of the suit and the agreement of the defendant No. 1 with the plaintiffs. 3. The third parties were liable to be evicted on summary proceedings as they had no legal right to occupy the premises. The Court has passed an order for protecting and preserving properties by appointing Receiver to take possession, if such possession is disturbed by any of the parties or by third party or parties, to the suit the Court shall see in exercise of its inherent power the status on the date of passing interim order is restored. 4. The Court had jurisdiction to evict the third parties as they were in illegal possession of the suit premises.
Final Decision: The objections of the third parties were overruled. All the persons who had filed their objections were directed to vacate their respective portions within one month from the date of communication of the order. On vacating, the Joint Receiver shall take physical possession, failing which the Receivers were directed to evict them with the help of the local Police Station and costs of such police assistance shall be realized by the receivers and/or the Police authority from the aforesaid persons.
( 1 ) THE plaintiff has taken out this application for eviction of a number of persons as mentioned in paragraph 16 of the petition from suit premises being No. 111 park Street Calcutta, principally, on the ground these persons have taken possession in breach of the interim order of status quo and further disturbing possession of the receiver appointed by this Court, during pendency of the suit.
( 2 ) THE short fact of the case is that the plaintiff Bank entered into three agreements with the defendant No. 1 for purchase of five floors namely 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th of the aforesaid premises at an agreed price on or about 22nd August 1989. At that point of time the proposed building was not constructed. So, in terms of the agreements possession and/or occupation of the respective floors were to be delivered in phase-wise and gradually. The defendant No. 1, however in breach of the said agreement failed and neglected either to give possession of the respective floors as agreed upon or to execute and register necessary conveyance.
( 3 ) IT appears from the records that defendant No. 1 was the promoter and defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were the owner of the land and old structure. It was the plea of the defendant No. 1 that the agreement was lawfully terminated. Thus the plaintiff took out an application for interlocutory relief for appointment of Receiver and for order of injunction. The defendant No. 1 had also taken out an application for rejection of the plaint filed in this suit. Both these two applications were heard together by Justice shymal Kumar Sen (as His Lordship then was ). From time to time various interim orders were passed by Justice Sen on the application of plaintiff. On 19th December 1994, Justice Sen was pleased to dispose of the application for rejection of the plaint without passing any order, however. His lordship kept the point raised in that demurer application open to be tried at the time of hearing of the suit. As far as the application for interlocutory relief of the plaint is concerned the same was dealt with by His Lordship. On 6th December 1994 in that application the learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 made submission that the defendant No. 1 had already sold and transferred 1st to 5th floors, roof and the car-parking space of the premises in question before institution of the suit and the possession had also been delivered to the re-' spective purchasers.
( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid submission on 20th December 1994 Mr. Justice Sen was pleased to appoint three learned Lawyers of this Court Joint Special Officer to visit the 1st to 5th floors of the premises In question and to submit report to the Court about possession of the said floors, and also the car-parking space. On 2nd January 1995 justice Sen was pleased to pass order directing that no transfer will be effected in respect of the premises In question until further order of the Court.
( 5 ) PURSUANT to the order of Justice Sen joint Special Officers submitted report on 20th December 1994 and it was found then the following persons were in possession and/or occupation in the respective floors as follows : 1st Floor Regards Sarees, G. P. Chokhany 2nd Floor Aakanksha, Exxon Bandana sangeet 3rd Floor J. L. Agarwal, Beejay 4th Floor Vivek Gupta, Gallop Wheelers 5th Floor R. K. Gupta, R. K. Gupta, ashok Gupta
( 6 ) WHEN the aforesaid information of transfer of various floors was given to the court, the defendant No. 1 was directed to supply the particulars of the names of the occupants as was required to be given statutorily under the Income-tax Act 1961 in form 37-1. It was not supplied by the defendant No. 1. So. in terms of the Court's order the Income-tax department produced 12 numbers of Forms 37-I dated 14th september and submitted dated 14th september 1994. In this form it was found only bandana Sangeet and Gallop were stated to be in occupation on 1st floor and 2nd floor.
( 7 ) THE aforesaid Interlocut
