Back
1997 Supreme(Del) 990
High Court Of Delhi
PURAN MAL - Appellant
Versus
LAJWANTI AGGARWAL - Respondent
Suit 859 of 1984
Decided On : 12/10/1997
G.D.Tehri, L.R.GUPTA, Mahinder Rana
Any transfer of property made during the pendency of a suit is void and does not affect the rights of the parties to the suit.
Headnote:
LIS PENDENS - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 52 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER 21 RULE 102 - SALE DEEDS EXECUTED DURING PENDENCY OF SUIT - VOID - DO NOT AFFECT RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFF.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that sale deeds executed by defendant No. 4 in favor of defendants 5 and 6 during the pendency of a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts were void and did not affect his rights as a partner.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the sale deeds were void and did not affect the rights of the plaintiff as the transfers were made during the pendency of the second appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit for a mere declaration was maintainable? 2. Whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to try the suit? 3. Whether defendants 5 and 6 had locus standi to contend that the suit property was not the partnership property of M/s Bharat Engineering Company? 4. Whether the suit property was the partnership property of the firm M/s Bharat Engineering Company? 5. Whether the Directorate of Industries, Haryana State Govt. was a necessary party to the suit? 6. Whether the plaint did not disclose a cause of action against defendants 5 and 6? 7. Whether defendants 5 and 6 were bona fide purchasers of the suit property for valuable consideration and without notice of the pendency of the R.S.A no. 154/ 74 pending in this Court? 8. Whether the sale of the property in favor of the defendants 5 and 6 was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens? 9. Whether the impugned transfer of property in favor of defendants 5 and 6 was sham fictitious, fraudulent and collusive and is not binding on the plaintiff?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 52 of the Transfer of Properties Act, 1882, which states that any transactions made by the parties with reference to the property would not affect the rights of the parties to the suit during the pendency of the suit. The court also referred to Order 21 Rule 102 of the Civil Procedure Code, which states that any transfer made by a judgment debtor after the institution of the suit could not clothe the transferee with any right.
Final Decision: The court declared that the sale deeds executed by defendant No. 4 in favor of defendants 5 and 6 were void and did not affect the rights of the plaintiff as a partner. The court also granted a permanent injunction restraining defendants 5 and 6 from participating in the final decree proceedings and causing any obstruction to the plaintiff in getting a final decree passed in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration. The plaintiff and late Shri Amar Nath Aggarwal now represented by defendant No. 4 were partners. Shri Puran Mal has filed the suit No. 635/65 on the file of Shri Shamsher Singh Kanwar P. C. S. Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The subject matter of this suit was in dispute as to whether it was partnership property or not. Late Shri Amar Nath Aggarwal took the plea that Puran Mal was a not partner. The suit No. 635/65 was decreed and the preliminary decree was passedon19. 09. 1969.
( 2 ) LATE Shri Amar Nath Aggarwal filed an appeal No. R. C. A. no. 119 of 1973. The Additional District Judge, by judgment dated 16. 01. 1974 dismissed the appeal confirming the decree passed by the trial court on 19,09. 1969. There was a second appeal No. R. S. A. No. 154 of 1974. The defendants 5 and 6 claimed to be the purchasers of the property from late Shri Amar Nath Aggarwal during the pendency of the proceedings in Suit No. 635 of 1965.
( 3 ) IN view of the sale effected by late Shri Amar Nath Aggarwal in favour of defendants 5 and 6 it became necessary for the plaintiff to institute the suit for a mere declaration.
( 4 ) ON 01. 08. 1986, the following issues were framed for trial by this Court:
1. Whether the suit for a mere declaration as sought for therein is maintainable? 2. Whether the Delhi High Court got the jurisdiction to try the suit? 3. Whether defendants No. 5 and 6 have got the locus- standi to contend that the suit property was not the partnership property of M/s Bharat Engineering Company (Objected to) 4. If issue No. 3 is affirmed, whether the suit property was the partnership property of the firm M/s Bharat Engineering Company? 5. Whether the Directorate of Industries, Haryana State Govt. is a necessary party to the suit and the suit cannot proceed without joining them as a party to the suit? 6. Whether the plaint does not disclose a cause of action against defendants No. 5 and 6? 7. Whether defendants No. 5 and 6 are bona fide purchasers of the suit property for valuable consideration and without notice of the pendency of the R. S. A no. 154/ 74 pending in this Court (Onus objection to the is held as correctly placed ). 8. Whether the sale of the property in favour of the defendants No. 5 and 6 is hit by the doctrine of lispendenthes? 9. Whether the impugned transfer of property in favour of defendants 5 and 6 is sham fictitious, fraudulent and collusive and is not binding on the plaintiff? 10. Relief.
( 5 ) IT is not necessary to set out the pleadings in details except the pleadings of defendants 5 and 6 who filed their written statements stating that they are bona fide purchasers.
( 6 ) RSA No. 154/74 was dismissed by this court on 13. 10. 1988. According to defendants 5 and 6 that they were the partners carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Sham Textiles Industries. The suit property was purchased under two different sale deeds in the name of Manohar Lal on 22. 12. 1981 and 14. 07. 1982 and Manohar Lal was entitled to 1/4th portion and the 6th defendant was entitled to 3/4th portion. Whatever the dates it is common ground that the sale deeds were made during the pendency of the proceedings.
( 7 ) SHRI Puran Mal filed an application No. 578/83 in RSA No. 154/74 undeoborder 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code to implead Manohar Lal the 5th defendant as a party. Manohar Lal filed reply dated 22. 08. 1983 stated that he was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and that he was only an owner of 1/4 share and 3/4 share had fallen to Shri Narendra Pal (6th defendant) son of Shri Ramji Das. He further stated that the transfer would not hit by doctrine of lis pendens. This court passed the following order in CM No. 578/83: This is an application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code for impleading Manohar Lal the transferee of the property from the appellant. Even if the applicant suc
