Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 643
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya, J.
Kulwant Singh v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No. 1388 of 2012 (Gwalior); Decided on 10.12.2014
J. P. Mishra for petitioner; N. S. Kirar, Panel Lawyer for respondents/State; D. D. Bansal for applicants/Intervenors.
Headnote:(1) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S.52 -- regarding disputed property -- lis as second appeal pending before High Court -- transfer of such property is prohibited by virtue of doctrine of lis pendens. (1857)1 De G and J 566 and (2005)11 SCC 403 referred to. [Paras 11 & 12
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.41 R.5 and S.100 -- appeal admitted -- maintenance of status quo regarding possession directed -- effect of -- in all fairness -- no third party rights should be allowed to be created -- registration of sale deed rightly refused.
Held : The submission of counsel for the petitioner that there is no stay against alienation or creation of third party rights in the suit property, therefore, there is no prohibition in execution of the sale deed in issue cannot be countenanced and in fact, the same is found to be not only against the principles underlying section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act but also an attempt to seek legal recognition of transfer of title by suppression and misrepresentation of facts. This cannot be permitted as our legal system does not approve of the same founded on principles of rule of law, justice, equity and good conscience. [Paras 13 & 14
(3) Registration Act, 1908 -- S.71 -- sale deed -- when can be refused by registration -- regarding disputed property -- second appeal pending before High Court -- maintenance of status quo regarding possession directed -- contempt proceedings also pending -- seller not in possession -- suppression and misrepresentation of facts in sale deed -- registration rightly refused -- no relief can be granted in writ jurisdiction. [Paras 13 to 15
¼1½ laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 & /kkjk 52 & fookfnr laifÙk ds laca/k esa & mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k okn ds :i esa f}rh; vihy yafcr & fopkjk/khu okn ds fl)kar ds izHkko ls ,slh laifÙk dk varj.k izfrf"k) gSA ¼1857½1 Mhb th rFkk ts- 566 rFkk ¼2005½11 ,l lh lh 403 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 11 ,oa 12
¼2½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-41 fu-5 rFkk /kkjk 100 & vihy xzg.k dh xbZ & dCtk ds laca/k esa ;FkkfLFkfr cuk, j[kuk funsf'kr & dk izHkko & lc feykdj U;k;laxfr ds fy, & vU; i{kdkj ds vf/kdkj l`ftr fd;k tkuk eatwj ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg, & foØ; foys[k dk jftLVªhdj.k lgh&gh badkj fd;k x;kA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;kph ds dkmUlsy dk fuosnu fd okn laifÙk ds vU; laØke.k ;k vU; i{kdkj dk vf/kdkj l`ftr djus ds fo#) dksbZ jksd ugha gS] blfy,] fook| foØ; foys[k dk fu"iknu izfr"ks/k ugha gS] bldk leFkZu ugha fd;k tk ldrk vkSj oLrqr%] ;g u dsoy laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 52 esa vUrfuZfgr fl)karksa ds izfrdwy gS cfYd rF;ksa dks fNikdj vkSj nqO;Zins"ku }kjk gd~ varj.k dh oS/k ekU;rk pkgus dk iz;kl Hkh fd;k gSA ;g vuqKs; ugha fd;k tk ldrk tSlk fd gekjh fof/kd i)fr esa fof/k ds fu;e ds fl)karksa] U;k;] lkE;k vkSj 'kq) var%dj.k ij vk/kkfjr mldk vuqeksnu ugha djrkA ¼iSjk 13 ,oa 14
¼3½ jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1908 & /kkjk 71 & foØ; foys[k & jftLVªhdj.k ls dc badkj fd;k tk ldrk gS & fookfnr laifÙk ds laca/k esa & mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k f}rh; vihy yafcr & dCtk ds laca/k esa ;FkkfLFkfr cuk, j[kuk funsf'kr & voekuuk dh dk;Zokgh Hkh yafcr & foØsrk dCtk j[kus okyk ugha & foØ; foys[k esa rF;ksa dk fNikuk vkSj nqO;Zins'ku & jftLVªhdj.k ls lgh&gh badkj fd;k x;k & fjV vf/kdkfjrk esa dksbZ lgk;rk iznku ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 13 ls 15
1. Delink, Second Appeal No.609/2008 and Contempt Case No.134/2013. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, Kulwant Singh s/o Inder Singh has sought for a direction to the respondent No.3, Sub-Registrar to register the sale deed dated 20.4.2011.
2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are in narrow compass:
3. There is a title dispute pending in the form of Second Appeal No.
609/2008 (Ramnarayan and others v. Savitri Bai and others). The applicants/intervenors are the appellants and vendors shown in the aforesaid sale deed are respondents in the second appeal.
4. This Court while admitting Second Appeal No.609/2008 on 17.2.2010 has framed the following substantial questions of law and as a measure of interim protection under Order XLI rule 5 CPC (I.A.No.1031/2006) had directed that the status quo as regards possession of the suit property shall be maintained by the parties.
“(i) Whether the Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit for declaration and exclusive possession of ½ share without there being any relief of partition claimed by the plaintiffs in the plaint ?
(ii) Whether in absence of a specific challenge being made by the plaintiffs against the execution of the Will, the finding regarding execution of Will would sustain, in view of the specific Evidence adduced by the defendants ?
(iii) Whether the Suit as filed by the plaintiffs was barred by Limitation and was not maintainable ?
(iv) Whether the Suit was liable to be dismissed for want of non payment of requisite Court fee and for mis joinder of parties ?
(v) Whether the judgment, decree and findings are perverse and contrary to law and passed ignoring the admissions and based on wrong assumptions of facts and law ?
The aforesaid order was made absolute on 20.3.2010.
5. It appears that after admission of the appeal, the draft sale deed was prepared on 20.4.2011 in respect of the suit property wherein the petitioner is shown to be purchaser and the respondents in second appeal as sellers. Intervenors having come to know about the aforesaid sale deed have submitted objections before the Sub-Registrar objecting to the registration of the sale deed in the light of pendency of the second appeal wherein substantial questions of law have been framed in the context of the aforesaid dispute between the parties and the interim order passed by this Court therein for maintenance of status quo as regards possession of the suit property.
6. The intervenors have also filed a contempt petition vide Contempt Case No.134/2013 on 11.2.2013 alleging contempt of Court’s order as respondents in the second appeal have in order to transfer the suit property had prepared the sale deed to be executed in favour of the petitioner despite interim orders passed by this Court on 17.2.2010 and 20.3.2010 (supra). It is also stated in the contempt petition that a writ petition has also been filed by the prospective buyer seeking a direction for registration of sale deed with out impleading the appellants in the second appeal as party to the writ petition. Since then, the contempt petition is pending for consideration.
7. Applicants in the contempt petition have filed an application for intervention (I.A.No.830/2013) in this writ petition opposing the relief claimed in the writ petition by the petitioner. It is pleaded that perusal of the sale deed reflects that there is material suppression of facts misleading in nature and highly prejudicial to the appellants in Second Appeal No.609/2008 (supra). In fact, the sale deed is sought to be executed behind back of the applicants/intervenors on the strength of misrepresentation of facts. It is further pleaded in the application that the aforesaid sale deed dated 20.4.2011 bears a stipulation that the vendors/respondents in Second Appeal No.609/2008 (supra) have title and are in possession over the suit property. They have exclusive right to transfer the same and vendee/purchaser has bee
