The court affirmed that a decree binds successors-in-interest unless declared void, and collusion in prior judgments affects the applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens.

Judgment

Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.

With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, three connected appeals i.e. Regular Second Appeal No. 1461 of 2023, Execution Second Appeal No. 43 of 2022 and Execution Second Appeal No. 20 of 2023, shall stand disposed of.

2. It would be noted here that in Regular Second Appeal No. 1461 of 2023, formal notice of motion has not been issued. However, on 18.08.2023, Mr. R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate, entered appearance for all the respondents. The learned counsels were requested to come prepared for arguments. Thereafter, the hearing of the appeal was adjourned on two different occasions. Again on 11.10.2023, the learned counsel representing the parties undertook to come prepared for the final arguments. On 18.10.2023, they not only addressed oral arguments, but also filed their written synopsis along with the gist of their arguments. The learned counsel representing the parties are also ad idem that all the relevant record is part of the paper-books of three appeals and the requisitioning of the lower Courts’ record is not necessary.

3. After having heard the learned counsel representing the parties, the following issues require adjudication in these cases:-

i) Whether an individual, who has no independent right except a possibility of inheritance to the property of his predecessor-in-interest, can file a suit for possession without seeking the relief of setting aside or annuling or declaration that such decree is illegal, which was passed against his predecessor-in-interest?

ii) Whether the doctrine of lis pendens would be applicable even if it is proved that the previous judgment was the result of collusion?

4. In order to understand the relationship between the parties, a genealogical tree of the family reads under:-

5. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. On the enactment of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1952 Act”), late Sh. Ghumand Singh became the owner of the property measuring 81 kanals and 6 marlas of land (half share of 162 kanals and 12 marlas, located in village Sotha, Tehsil and District Muktsar). On 20.01.1968, he bequeathed the entire property he had in his share i.e. 81 kanals and 6 marlas of land, by way of a registered Will, in the name of his two grandsons, namely Harnek Singh and Gurcharan Singh sons of late Sh.Inder Singh.

6. Harnek Singh and Gurcharan Singh filed a Civil Suit No. 288 of 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1st suit”) against late Sh. Ghumand Singh, their grandfather, seeking declaration that they are the owners in possession of the property. Late Sh. Ghumand Singh admitted the claim of his grandsons, which resulted in a judgment and decree dated 04.08.1975. On 22.10.1975, Bachan Kaur and Gurmel Singh, widow and son of late Sh. Karam Singh, respectively, son of late Sh.Ghumand Singh, filed a suit for the grant of decree of declaration (hereinafter referred to as “the 2nd suit”) that they are the owners in possession of the suit land measuring 12 kanals located in village Sotha, Tehsil Muktsar, by virtue of a family settlement dated 13.03.1975 between late Sh.Ghumand Singh and the plaintiffs in the 2nd suit and hence, the decree dated 04.08.1975, obtained by Harnek Singh and Gurcharan Singh holds no ground and, thus, is said to be null and void and ineffective against the plaintiffs in the 2nd suit. From the pleadings of the parties in the aforesaid suit, the following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the land in dispute?

2. Whether