1981 Supreme(MP) 762

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A.R. Navkar, J.
Khubi – Applicant
Versus
Gulab – Non-applicant
C.R. No. 246 of 1980 (G)
Decided On : 18-03-1981

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 39, R. 2 – injunction against intended alienation – may be given to avoid multiplicity of suits – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – S.52.

       (2) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – S. 62 – safeguard provided under – though sufficient, yet injunction may be given to avoid multiplicity of suits – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 39, R. 2.

        Short Note

       1. The suit of the plaintiffs in the trial Court was that the survey No. 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 353, 354 and 355 are situated in village Jhingura, Pargana and district Shivpuri. This property is joint Hindu family property of plaintiffs and defendant. In the said property the plaintiff Nos. 1, 2, 3 and the defendants have 1/3rd share each. For dividing the agricultural property, the plaintiffs submitted an application in Tahsil Shivpuri but as the defendant raised a question of title, the Tahsil Court held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. As the application was not entertained by the Tahsil Court, the present suit is filed. Along with the suit an application under Order 39, rule 1 and 2, C.P.C. was presented by the plaintiffs with a request that till the final decision of the case the defendant be restrained from alienating the suit property. If the defendant is allowed to alienate it will create multiplicity of the suit and also when there is alienation the plaintiffs will have to add more parties to the suit.

       2. The learned trial Court, after taking into consideration the material on record, allowed the application of the plaintiffs granting an injunction against the defendant. Being aggrieved by the said order the defendant preferred an appeal before the District Court. The District Court, taking into consideration the arguments adduced before it came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs and the defendants have shares in the ancestral property and if the defendant is allowed to alienate there will be multiplicity of the suits and unnecessary litigation. Holding this the learned District Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court. Before the appellate Court a document showing partition between the parties was produced but as the document was unstamped and unregistered the District Court did not consider it proper to base its judgment on such a document. Whether such a document will be admissible or not, will be decided by the trial Court, therefore, I feel that I should not give any opinion regarding the finding given by the District Court as far the document is concerned but the finding given by the appellate Court that to avoid multiplicity of the suits and also unnecessary litigation it seems to be correct and proper.

       3. Before me it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that to protect the rights of the parties, section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is sufficient.

       Held : But, in my opinion, section 52 of the Act even though is sufficient to safeguard the possibility that there will be multiplicity of the suits and so many parties will be involved in the litigation for nothing. Therefore, in my opinion to avoid this position the injunction granted by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, I see no reason to discharge. Revision dismissed.