Back
2009 Supreme(MP) 308
P. K. JAISWAL. J.
Dilip Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Bahadur Singh & Ors. – Respondents
S. A. No. 116 of 2008.
Decided on : 17-3-2009
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Lis Pendens
Act Referred
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT : S.52
Headnote
Lis Pendens - Property Dispute - M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, Section 202(7), 250(6) - Rules 97 to 106 of Order 21 of CPC - Rule 102 of Order 21 - Doctrine of Lis Pendens - Rule 29 of Order 21, CPC
Fact of the Case:
The appellant objected to the execution of a decree claiming that the property was purchased during the pendency of the proceedings and therefore the doctrine of lis pendens should apply. The lower courts rejected the objection, and the appellant appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant, as a purchaser pendente lite, had no right to resist or obstruct the execution of the decree. The court held that the doctrine of lis pendens applied to the transaction in question and affirmed the lower courts' decisions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant, as a purchaser pendente lite, had the right to object to the execution of the decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Rule 102 of Order 21 of the CPC, which states that a transferee from a judgment debtor during the pendency of litigation has no right to resist or obstruct the execution of a decree. The court also emphasized the doctrine of lis pendens, which prohibits a party from dealing with the property that is the subject of a suit.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, and the court held that the appellant had no right to resist the execution of the decree.
N. K. Gupta, for Appellant; J. P. Mishra, for Respondent.
Heard on admission.
This appeal is filed by the objector against the judgment and order dated 8-2-2008 passed by the Second Additional District Judge (FTC) Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha, in Civil Appeal No. 25-Aj08, by the said order, the Second Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and affirmed the order dated 17-9-2007 passed by the Executing Court, Ganj Basoda, in Execution Case No. 20-A/63x94, whereby objection of the appellant was rejected.
2. Short facts of the case are that Maan Singh, father of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and husband of respondent No.3 filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No. 20Aj63x94 against Pratap S/o Hukum Singh and State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector, Vidisha, in the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Basoda, which was decreed on 11-11-1965. Trial Court directed that defendant No.1 Pratap Singh shall hand over the possession of the disputed land (Survey Numbers 143, 146, 152. 164, 169, 185, 186, 188 and 205 situated in Village Madiya Peeniya, Tahsil Basoda. District Vidisha) within one month from the date of the judgment. In case of default of handing over possession as above, the defendant No. 1 shall pay mesne profits to the plaintiffs @ 504.70 Paise, which is ten times of the land revenue payable as per Ex. D /7. In view of the provisions of Section 202 (7) and 250 (6) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Trial Court also declared that the plaintiff is Bhumiswami of the disputed land.
3. Defendant No. 1 challenged the said judgment and decree before the Additional Judge Ganj Basoda to the Court of District Judge, Vidisha, by filing Civil Appeal No. 27A/93. which was dismissed on 22-7-1994.
4. On the death of original defendant No. 1 Pratap Singh, his legal heirs challenged the judgment and decree of the Courts below by filing SA No. 121/94, which was also dismissed by this Court on 18-1-1999.
5. Devi Singh legal heir of Pratap Singh challenged the order dated 18-1-1999 passed in SA No. 121/94 by filing Civil Appeal No. 6065/00 before the Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 1-5-2007 by holding that they see no reason to interfere with well merited concurrent finding of facts recorded by all the Courts below. The appeal being devoid of merit was accordingly dismissed.
6. Appellant-objector during the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 27-A/93 before the Additional District Judge, Ganj Basoda. entered into an agreement on 30-6-1989 with Smt. Narbadi Bai widow of Pratap Singh in respect of an area of 1.453 hectares of Survey Numbers 164 and 169 for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter on 177 -1989. she executed a sale deed in his favour. Devi Singh and Omkar Singh, who are sons of Pratap Singh. gave their consent to her mother for execution of the said sale deed.
7. Objector after execution of the sale deed executed a registered consent letter with Maan Singh S/o Mannu Singh Rajput on 15-3-1990. On the basis of the consent letter and sale deed. objector filed an objection before the' Executing Court vide IA No.11/07 on 1-8-2007. This objector during the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 27-A/93 purchased the property in question knowing well that the trial Court in the year 1965 passed a decree against Pratap Singh and after the death of original defendant Pratap Singh. his widow Smt. Narbadi Bai was brought on record a legal representative and after her death her son and three daughters. namely. Devi Singh. Sahadara Bai, Parvati Bai, and Girja Bai were brought,on record. The said legal heirs challenged the judgment and decree by filing SA No. 121/ 94. which was dismissed by this Court on 18-1-1999. After dismissal of the second appeal, Devi Singh. one of the legal heir of Pratap Singh. challenged the said judgment by filing an appeal before the Apex Court, which is evident from the order dated 1-52007 passed by the Apex Court.
8. Objection was filed on the ground that after execution of the sale deed dated 17-71989 from Sm
