The principle of admission of the opposite party being the best evidence and the application of lis pendens under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act were central to the judgment.

Headnote:
ORDER : – Appeal - Civil Procedure - Section 96 - Avinash Kumar Rai vs. Dr. Kumari Chhaya Rai and two others - 60(b) of the Easements Act - Lis pendens - Transfer of Property Act - Adverse inference - Evidence Act
Fact of the Case:

The parties filed two different suits against each other with regard to the same property. The appellant filed a Civil Suit No. 40A/14 seeking declaration of continuous possession over the disputed portion of the house since 1966 and permanent injunction. The respondents filed Civil Suit No. 39A/14 seeking eviction of the appellant from the suit premises and recovery of mesne profits.
Finding of the Court:

The trial Court passed a judgment and decree dismissing the appellant's suit and allowing the respondents' suit. The appellant appealed, arguing that the trial Court erred in passing the judgment and decree in favor of the respondents and failed to consider the specific denials of the defendants and the evidence proving the appellant's continuous possession since 1966.
Issues: The main issues were the continuous possession of the appellant, the validity of the sale deed, and the termination of the license by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the respondents failed to prove their case, and the evidence of the respondents' witness, who had no knowledge about the facts of the principal plaintiff, was inadmissible. The Court also applied the principle of lis pendens under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, declaring the sale of the property during the pendency of the civil suit as void and ineffective.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the judgment and decree, rejected the respondents' suit, and allowed the appellant's suit. A decree was ordered as per the appellant's prayer clause in his Civil Suit No. 40A/14.

ORDER : – With the consent of the parties, this appeal is finally heard. This first appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the common judgment and decree dated 2-8-2021 passed by learned 19th District Judge, Jabalpur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 40-A/14 parties being Avinash Kumar Rai vs. Dr. Kumari Chhaya Rai and two others and also in regular Civil Suit No. 39-A/14 parties being Dr. Kumari Chhaya Rai and two others vs. Avinash Kumar Rai, whereby the Civil Suit No. 40A/14 filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed whereas the Civil Suit No. 39A/14 filed by the respondents herein (Dr. Kumari Chhaya Rai and two others) has been allowed in part and the decreed the suit according to para 63 of its impugned judgment.

2. The factual assertions as would unveil, are that the parties had filed two different suits against each other with regard to the same property. Since the property in dispute and subject-matter of the case were common, therefore, learned trial Court tried aforesaid two suits together. However, the Civil Suit No. 40-A/14 filed by the appellant herein was dismissed and the Civil Suit No. 39A/14 filed by the respondents herein was allowed in part and passed the decree according to para 63 of its judgment. Dr. Ku. Chhaya Rai and two others were defendants in the Civil Suit No. 40A/14 instituted on 1-6-2009 by the plaintiff Avinash Kumar Rai/appellant herein and Avinash Kumar Rai was defendant in the Civil Suit No. 39A/14 filed on 25-6-2009 by the plaintiffs Dr. Ku. Chhaya Rai and two others/respondents herein. Avinash Kumar Rai and Dr. Kumari Chhaya Rai are real brother and sister. Both the suits were ordered to be consolidated for analogous hearing by the trial Court by order dated 6-7-2011.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that the question of maintainability of this present appeal arising out of the common judgment and decree has already been dealt with earlier vide order dated 24-11-2021 on the preliminary objection of respondents No. 2 and 3 vide I. A. No. 7253/2021.

4. The facts of the case succinctly stated are that the appellant/plaintiff Avinash filed a Civil Suit No. 40A/14 for declaration to the effect that the appellant is in continuous possession over the disputed portion of the disputed house since 1966 and the portion in which he made a pakka construction for his family, the respondents are not entitled to dispossess the appellant, and also for permanent injunction that the respondents be restrained from transferring and alienating and selling the disputed property to anyone else and also from damaging the disputed portion of the house. Further declaration was sought that sale deed dated 30-9-2010 registered on 4-10-2010 executed by respondent No. 1 Dr. Ku. Chhaya Rai in favour of the respondents No. 2 and 3 namely Pradeep Chouksey and Smt. Pushpa Devi Chouksey being illegal be declared null and void and the same is not binding upon the appellant Avinash Kumar Rai.

5. The defendants/respondents herein Dr. Kumari Chhaya Rai and two others also filed a Civil Suit No. 39A/14 for mandatory injunction seeking eviction of Avinash Rai from the suit premises and also for recovery of mesne profits and further Avinash be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the respondents and also for issuing permanent injunction against Avinash to the effect that he be restrained from dispossessing Dr. Kumari Chhaya Rai.

6. Appellant Avinash averred in the plaint instituted on 1-6-2009 that House No. 1411 (old No. 796) situated at Dr. Barad Road, Napier Town, Jabalpur and marked as ka, kha, ga, gha, da, cha in red color in the map which hereinafter shall be referred as ‘disputed house’, that he is the brother of the respondent No. 1 Dr. Kumari Chhaya Rai and was residing peacefully along with his family on a part of the disputed property since 1966 and made a pakka house (permanent construction) with the consent and due permission as a