Bhupinder Kaur vs Sukhwinder Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant Bhupinder Kaur has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 03.06.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial court and judgment dated 11.04.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by the lower appellate court, thereby granting temporary injunction to the respondents/plaintiffs and restraining the defendant/petitioner from alienating the suit property to any other person till the disposal of the suit. Respondent no. 1/plaintiff no. 1 is real brother of defendant-petitioner. Plaintiff no. 2 is wife of plaintiff no. 1. Other plaintiffs are also said to be relatives of plaintiff no. 1.

Plaintiffs have filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 02.09.2008. By filing application for temporary injunction, the plaintiffs sought to injunct the defendant from alienating the suit land during pendency of the suit.

The defendant pleaded that the impugned agreement is forged and fabricated document. She denied having executed the agreement. Various other pleas were also raised.

Both the courts below have allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this revision petition to challenge the orders of the courts below.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that stamp paper for the alleged agreement was purchased on 08.06.2006, whereas the alleged agreement is dated 02.09.2008, allegedly executed 02 years 03 months after the purchase of the stamp paper, making the agreement prima facie suspicious. It was also pointed out that at the time of agreement, amount of Rs. 40 lacs is shown to have been paid in cash to the defendant and vide alleged endorsement dated 02.09.2009, another amount of Rs. 25 lacs is shown to have been paid in cash, thereby depicting the agreement to be highly suspicious.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied on various judgments namely M/s. Aagosh Polyfoams Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Ajay Grover reported as 2011 (5) RCR (Civil) 863 , Iqbal Singh and Others Vs. Karan Podar and Another, Darshan Lal Vs. Ram Parshad, Gulab Rai Vs. Atam Singh and Others, Sarup Singh and Others Vs. Nirmal Singh and Another, , Guruswamy Nadar Vs. P. Lakshmi Ammal (D) through LRs. and Others, Arjan Singh Vs. Punit Ahluwalia and Others, and also on two unreported judgments of this Court i.e. judgment dated 08.02.2012, passed in the case bearing C.R. No. 789 of 2012 titled Joginder Singh vs. Kulbir Kaur and another and judgment dated 21.12.2011, passed in the case bearing C.R. No. 7914 of 2011 titled Daulat Ram vs. Mahender Gir and others.

On the other hand, counsel for respondents contended that since the defendant-petitioner intends to alienate the suit land, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings, and therefore, the suit property should be preserved and alienation cannot be permitted, unless injunction against alienation would cause irreparable loss and injury. It was also pointed out that the defendant has already sold a part of the suit land. Reliance has been placed on various judgments namely Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass, , Muktakesi Dawn and Others Vs. Haripada Mazumdar and Another, , N. Srinivasa Vs. Kuttukaran Machine Tools Ltd., , Ajit Kaur Vs. Phuman Singh, Smt. Rita Toor Vs. Logical Developers Pvt. Ltd., and Baljit Singh and another vs. Satnam Singh and others reported as 2006 (3) ICC 470.

I have carefully considered the matter.

Counsel for the respondents has not explained the suspicious circumstances pointed out by counsel for the petitioner, as noticed hereinbefore.

On the other hand, interest of plaintiffs can be safeguarded by directing that if the defendant alienates the suit land during pendency of the suit, she shall, by specific recital in the deed of alienation itself, mention about the pendency of the suit so that the alienee becomes aware of the pendency of the suit and consequently, there would be no multiplicity of the proceedings. On the other hand, alienee would be bound by the result of the suit in view of doctrine of lis pendens and he would also not be able to take the plea that he was not aware of the pendency of the suit.

Resultantly, without entering into rival claims of the parties, interest of both the parties would be safeguarded in the aforesaid manner. Consequently, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned orders Annexures P-4 and P-5 passed by the courts below are set aside. Application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs is disposed of in the manner that if, during pendency of the suit, the defendant alienates the suit land in any manner, she shall, by specific recital in the deed of alienation itself, mention about pendency of the suit and shall, within one month from the alienation, place a copy of the alienation deed on the record of the trial court.

Nothing observed hereinbefore shall be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the suit. Civil Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.