IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement to sell – Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Purchaser of property during pendency of suit cannot claim that he is a necessary party in pending suit – Although a coparcener or co-sharer can alienate to the extent of his share but he cannot alienate any specific piece of land.

ORDER

This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(Matter in Other Language)

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that by order dated 18.4.2023 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 200/2022, the 4th District Judge Rewa has affirmed the order dated 03.11.2022 passed by 9th Civil Judge Junior Division Rewa in C.S. No. 302A/2015 by which the petitioners have been restrained from raising a construction over the land purchased by them.

3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that the suit was instituted by respondents in the year 2012 for declaration of title, partition, permanent injunction as well as for declaration of Will dated 20.04.2002 and 20.12.2011 as null and void as well as for declaration of mutation on the basis of Will is bad. Furthermore, to declare the saledeed dated 10.05.2012, executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 namely Smt. Vandana Pandey and Smt. Sudha Pandey in favour of Mohd. Sahid Ansari on 10.05.2012 as null and void and also for declaration of mutation on the basis of sale-deed as null and void. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that Mohd. Sahid Ansari executed a sale-deed in respect of part of land in dispute in favour of Jagat Pal Singh on 20.10.2015. Thereafter, Jagat Pal Singh executed a sale-deed in respect of petitioner No. 1 on 01.06.2021. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 executed a sale-deed in favour of petitioner No. 2 on 06.12.2021. Similarly, petitioner No. 1 also executed a sale-deed in favour of petitioner No. 3 on 06.02.2022. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that since petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the bonafide purchasers, therefore, restraining them from raising construction over their own piece of land would cause irreparable loss to them and thus both the Courts below committed a material illegality by passing an order of temporary injunction, thereby, restraining the petitioners for raising the construction. It is further submitted by counsel for petitioners that earlier by order dated 15.05.2014, the 6th Civil Judge Class-II, Rewa issued a temporary injunction order which was to remain in force for a period of one year or till the final disposal of the suit, whichever is earlier and the defendants were restrained from creating a third party right interest. Thereafter, as the temporary injunction order was not extended, therefore, Mohd. Sahid Ansari, executed a sale-deed in favour of Jagat Pal Singh on 20.10.2015. It is submitted that at that time no temporary injunction was there because the temporary injunction order dated 15.05.2014 was not extended and had over lived its life of one year. Thereafter, on 12.01.2016, a fresh temporary injunction order was issued which was to remain in force for a period of six months. On 01.06.2021, Jagatpal Singh executed a sale-deed in favour of Ahmad Khan and subsequently Ahmad Khan executed different sale-deeds in favour of petitioners No. 2 and 3. Thus, it is submitted that the sale transactions took place when the temporary injunction order was not in force, therefore, the petitioners cannot be restrained from raising construction. It is further submitted that the important question which require adjudication is as to whether the temporary injunction order would automatically get extended or in absence of any extension order, the temporary injunction order which had a limited life would automatically come to an end.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

5. During the course of arguments, two queries were raised to the counsel for petitioners i.e.

1. Whether the provisions of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act would apply to the sale-deeds which were executed during the pendency of the suit; and

2. Whether a specific piece of land forming part of allegedly Joint Hindu Family property can be alienated?

6. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that both the queries are irrelevant and whereas the fact of the case is that there was no temporary inju