IMPORTANT POINT
The suit has been laid on file by the plaintiffs seeking partition of plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 6. Going by the well established principles under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the provisions of the Partition Act, it is without doubt that when a suit is laid for partition over certain properties, the principles of lis pendens come into operation; and any subsequent transaction by any of the parties would be of no consequence and would not affect the rights of the others

JUDGMENT :

1. The doctrine of lis pendens is derived from the latin maxim “ut pendent nihil innovetur”, which postulates that during litigation nothing should be changed.

2. In the conceded backdrop of the doctrine, the appellants in this appeal call into question an order of the Trial Court disallowing their application to injunct the defendants in the suit from alienating the plaint schedule properties pending their prayer for its partition.

3. Ineluctably, this Court has to thus examine whether the challenge in this appeal is necessary when the properties are admittedly modulated by the principles of lis pendens and if the impugned order would cause any legal prejudice to the appellants or affect their claims over them.

4. Plaintiffs 1 and 3 in a suit for partition have come up in this appeal challenging the order of the Trial Court declining to allow their application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the CPC'), whereby they had sought an injunction against the defendants from dealing with and alienating the plaint schedule properties.

5. The appellants say that even without appreciating the facts involved in its proper perspective, the Trial Court has hurried into a conclusion regarding the title of various items, particularly items 1 and 2 of the scheduled properties; and has thus declined an order of injunction. They assert that the Court has misdirected itself and has virtually prejudged the suit itself; and therefore, pray that the impugned order be set aside and that the defendants/respondents be injuncted from dealing with the plaint schedule properties until the suit is disposed of.

6. Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in addition to the above, submits that the nature of the conclusions and observations in the order impugned would clearly indicate that the Trial Court has virtually decided the suit itself and has frustrated his clients' rights over the plaint schedule properties, by entering into findings which were completely unwarranted at this stage. He says that all that the court below had to consider whether balance of convenience was in his client's favour in having sought for an interim injunction against the defendants from alienating the properties involved, which he says are six in number. The learned counsel, therefore, prays that this appeal be allowed and an order of injunction be issued against the respondents, as prayed for by his clients.

7. In response, Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants, submits that, it is evident from the impugned order, as regards plaint schedule item Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, that they were the subject matter of a Rent Control Petition, which had traversed all the way to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, finally culminating in the judgment reported in Thankamony Amma v. Omana Amma [2019 (4) KLT 361 (SC)]. He says that the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as is manifest from the said judgment, that plaint schedule item Nos.1 and 2 are exclusively owned by his clients and therefore that their possession or ownership cannot be disturbed by the plaintiffs in the suit are merely on the strength of a claim for partition. He says that the court below has, therefore, rightly assessed the situation and declined the application filed by the appellants under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the CPC, citing valid and cogent reasons as have been recorded therein. He then adds that consequent to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, his clients are in full possession of the property and that these aspects have also been properly noticed by the court below.

8. I have considered the afore submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also examined the order which is impugned in this appeal.

9. It is indubitable, as is conceded by the parties, that the suit has been laid on file by the plaintiffs seeking partition of plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 6. Going by the well established principl