Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 12523

DELHI HIGH COURT
NARENDRA KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
RAJESH CHAUDHARY & ANR. – Respondent
RFA-282_2023

The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not restrict transactions pendente lite in respect of immovable property in the absence of an injunction.

Headnote:
LIS PENDENS - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY - INJUNCTION - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:

The case involves three civil suits concerning the same property. Two suits were filed by Rajesh Chaudhary, claiming that an agreement to sell and power of attorney executed by him in favor of Ranbir were forged and fabricated, and seeking a declaration that he is the rightful owner of the property. The third suit was filed by Narender Kumar against Rajesh for a declaration that Narender is the exclusive and absolute owner of the property and for a decree of possession and other consequential reliefs. The impugned judgment decreed the two suits filed by Rajesh and dismissed the suit filed by Narender. Narender, Roma, and her sons appealed against the judgment. During the pendency of the appeals, the appellants filed applications for impleadment of two respondents who were not party to the original proceedings, who were stated to have purchased the suit property from Rajesh after the passing of the impugned judgment. The appellants filed applications for an injunction against the purchasers from construction, transfer, alienation, or creation of any third-party interest in the suit property.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appellants have not made out a case for grant of an injunction in the terms sought. The court found that the learned Trial Court had come to a finding that the appellants herein relied only upon unregistered documents in the nature of an agreement to sell, power of attorney, will, receipt, etc. There was no conveyance executed by Rajesh in favor of Ranbir and the documents also were not registered. This factual position is uncontested. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed clearly holds that title in immovable properties cannot be transferred on such a basis. In fact, no right, title, and interest vests in immovable property without a registered document. Prima facie, the court did not find any error in the view taken by the learned Trial Court in this regard.
Issues: Whether an injunction should be granted at the appellate stage on the strength of the order granted during the pendency of the suit. Whether the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, restricts transactions pendente lite in respect of immovable property in the absence of an injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: An injunction should not be granted at the appellate stage on the strength of the order granted during the pendency of the suit, as the Trial Court has adjudicated the matter finally, and found the appellants disentitled to the relief claimed. The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not restrict transactions pendente lite in respect of immovable property in the absence of an injunction. However, any alienation of the suit property pendente lite would be subject to the rights of other parties to the proceedings.
Final Decision: The applications for injunction were disposed of, and the appeals were listed for hearing on a later date.

RFA 282/2023 and connected matters

Page 1 of 13

$~P-1 to 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Decided on:-22^ndDecember, 2023

RFA 282/2023

NARENDRA KUMAR

..... Appellant

versus

RAJESH CHAUDHARY & ANR.

..... Respondents

RFA 283/2023 & CM APPL. 62717/2023

NARENDER KUMAR & ORS.

..... Appellants

versus

RAJESH CHAUDHARY

..... Respondent

RFA 284/2023

MRS. ROMA SINGH & ORS.

..... Appellants

versus

RAJESH CHAUDHARY

..... Respondent

Appearance: -

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.

Rajesh Kumar, Ms. Saloni Singh, Ms. Meghna

Bhutolia, Mr. Anshuj Dhingra, Mr. Aman Dixit and

Mr. Narendra Kumar & Mr. Rajat Joshi, Advocates

for Appellants.

Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Mr. B.S. Nagar, Mr.

Shobhit Jain and Mr. Harshit Khanduja, Advocates for

R-1.

Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Ms. Nattasha Garg, Mr. Thakur

Ankti Singh & Mr. Srikant Singh, Advocates for R-2

& 3.

Digitally Signed By:SHITU

NAGPAL

Signing Date:22.12.2023

18:26:11

Signature Not Verified

RFA 282/2023 and connected matters

Page 2 of 13

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

J U D G M E N T

PRATEEK JALAN, J

CM APPLs. 16947/2023 & 44660/2023 in RFA 282/2023 (stay)

CM APPLs. 16949/2023 & 44861/2023 in RFA 283/2023 (stay)

CM APPLs. 16951/2023 & 44661/2023 in RFA 284/2023 (stay)

A. Background

The captioned appeals are directed against a common judgment

and decree dated 05.12.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court in three

civil suits concerning the same property [C-125, Greater Kailash-I, New

Delhi].

Two of the suits [Suit No. 7262/2016 and Suit No. 10272/2016]

were filed by Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary [“Rajesh”], who is arrayed as

respondent No. 1 in these appeals. In the first suit, the defendants were

Mrs. Roma Singh [“Roma”], wife of late Col. Ranbir Singh [“Ranbir”],

and her two sons namely, Mr. Gaurav Singh and Mr. Sorabh Singh.

Rajesh sought a declaration that a purported agreement to sell and power

of attorney executed by him in favour of Ranbir were forged and

fabricated and a declaration that he is the rightful owner of the suit

property. In the second suit, Mr. Narender Kumar [“Narender”] was a

defendant in addition to Roma and her two sons. Rajesh sought a

declaration that a sale deed dated 19.11.2004 executed by Roma and her

sons in favour of Narender was null and void.

Digitally Signed By:SHITU

NAGPAL

Signing Date:22.12.2023

18:26:11

Signature Not Verified

RFA 282/2023 and connected matters

Page 3 of 13

The third suit [Suit No. 8708/2016] was filed by Narender against

Rajesh for declaration that Narender is the exclusive and absolute owner

of the suit property and for a decree of possession and other consequential

reliefs.

By the impugned judgment, the two suits filed by Rajesh have been

decreed, and the suit filed by Narender has been dismissed.

Narender, Roma and her sons are in appeal, although they are not

all arrayed as appellants in each of the appeal. During the pendency of the

appeals, the appellants filed applications for impleadment of two

respondents who were not party to the original proceedings viz. Mr. Anup

Garg and Mr. Jeevesh Sabharwal [collectively, “the purchasers”] who

were stated to have purchased the suit property from Rajesh on

22.03.2023, after the passing of the impugned judgment. They were

impleaded by order dated 12.09.2023, read with order dated 05.10.2023.

The appellants have now filed the captioned applications under Order

XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”] for

injunction

against

the

purchasers

from

construction,

transfer,

alienation or creation of any third party interest in the suit property. The

purchasers have filed replies to the applications.

B. Facts

For the purposes of present applications, the following facts are

relevant, with regard to which there is no substantial dispute between the

parties:

a. Roma and her sons claim an interest in the property on the basis of

an agreement to sell, power of attorney, will, receipt and other

Digitally Signed By:SHITU

NAGPAL

Signing Date:22.12.2023

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Del) 12523

DELHI HIGH COURTNARENDRA KUMAR – AppellantVersusRAJESH CHAUDHARY & ANR. – RespondentRFA-282_2023

The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not restrict transactions pendente lite in respect of immovable property in the absence of an injunction.

DELHI HIGH COURT
NARENDRA KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
RAJESH CHAUDHARY & ANR. – Respondent
RFA-282_2023