' <>-
DHANNA SINGH AND ORS.
v.
BAL.TINDER KAUR AND ORS.
APRIL 4, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 : Section 52.
Suit for pem1a11ent i11junctio11 filed by re~pondents-No evidence ad-
duced by defe11dant-Order passed by Cowt f oreclosi11g the evidence of
defenda11t-Appellant a subsequent purchaser from def e11da11t-Application
for adduction of evide11ce by appellant-Apart from the doctri11e of /is pe11-
dense u11der Section 52 of the T.P. Act, the subsequent purchaser does 11ot
A
B
c
get any right to lead to any evidence, as he stepped into the shoes of the first D
defendant, who had given up the right to lead evide11ce-{11 view of these
circumsta11ces, appella11t does 11ot get any 1ight to lead any evidence. .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3001 of
1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.5.96 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 4333 of 1995.
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, S.K. Mehta and Fazlin Anam for the Appellants.
Sudhir Walia and Mahinder Singh Dahiya for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
E
F
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Single Judge G
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, made on May 22, 1996 in C.R. No.
4333/1995.
The undisputed facts are that the respondents filed a suit for per-
manent injunction with the following prayer :
H
651
652
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1997) 3 S.C.R.
"It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from raising any construction over any
specific portion of the property detailed in the heading of the
plaint, and also restraining the defendants from filling any part of
the property by sand and also restraining the defendants from
alienating any specific portion of the properly and also restraining
the defendants from transferring the possession of the properly
without the same being partitioned between the parties to the suit;
may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defen-
dants with costs and any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may
deem fit be also granted."
Pending the suit, though several opportumt1cs were given, no
evidence was adduced by the defendant. The court passed an order on
September 22, 1995 fon.:closing the evidence of the defendant on the
statement of the counsel that the first defendant was not willing to lead any
evidence. An application for impleadment Wds tiled earliL:r by the appellant
D who is a subsequent purchaser from the first defendant. After implead·
ment, he filed application for adduction of evidence which was rejected.
Thus this appeal.
The undisputed fact is that in the plaint the plaintiff-respondent had
E already sought for a relief of injunction of alienation, yet the alienation
came to be made. Apart from the doctrine of tis pendense under section
52 of the T.P. Act, the subsequent purchaser does not get any right to lead
to any evidence, as he stepped into the shoes of the first defendant, who
had given up the right to lead evidence. In view of these circumstances, he
docs not get any right to lead any evidence.
F
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal dismissed.
--4
Lex