SARVINDER SINGH versus DALIP SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 271 · Decided: 02-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SARVINDER SINGH 
v. 
DALIP SINGH AND ORS. 
AUGUST 2, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ] 
Code of Civil Proced11re, 1908 : 
Order 1, R11/e l!J-Pa1ties to s11it-Suit for declaration by appellant 
claiming mvneiship of suit land on basis of a registered will dated 26.5.1952 
executed by his mother and statillg that a declaration to that effect was already 
given by Civil Cowt in another decree dated 29.3.1974-He also moved all 
application for ad inte1im injunction to restrain defendants from illte1feiing 
A 
B 
c 
lvith his possession-lnterint injunction granted initially but vacated later on 
2.12.1991 as meanwhile defendants alienated the suit land in favour of D 
mpo11dem,-Respondel!ts filed application under Order 1, Rule JO, seeking 
to come on record as defendants-Tiial Court rejected applicatioll holding 
that res11ondents were neither necessary1 nor proper pa1ties to the suit-High 
Court directed impleadment of respondents as pa1ty defendants to the 
suit-Held, re.\pondents cannot be said to be either necessary or properpa1ties 
to the suit in which pli1na1y relief lvas based on the registered will-Respon-
dents clailned right, title and interest pursuant to the registered sale deed which 
is hit by s.52 of Transfer of Prope1ty Act, 1882-'Nessessaiy party' and 'proper 
party' to suit-Explained. 
Tramfer of Prope1ty Act, 1882 : 
SSl--Doctiine of tis pendens--Plaintiff filed suit for declaratioll of title 
on the basis of a will and filed application for ad inteiim injunction seekillg 
to restrain defendams from intelfe1ing with his possession and enjoymellt of 
E 
F 
s11it property--Pellding suit defendants alienated suit land by a registered sale G 
deed-Held, the aliellation is hit by docoine of /is pendens by operation of 
s.52. 
New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Kwnkwn Mittal & o,,-, [1994] 1 
SCC 402 and Ramesh H. Kunda11mal v. Mu11icipal Corporation of Greater 
Bombay, (1992] 2 sec 524, cited. 
H 
271 
272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S:C:.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10663 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.5.93 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 323 or 1993. 
B 
R.K. Kapoor, P. Verma, S.K. Srivastava, B.R. Kapoor and S.C. Patel 
for the Appellant. 
Mrs. Rekha Palli for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
c 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
The admitted facts are that the appellant filed suit Case No. 253-1 
D before the Sub-judge, Ferozepur for declaration that he is the owner of the 
property on the basis of a registered Will dated May 26, 1952 executed by 
his mother Smt. Hira Devi and that a declaration to that effect was already 
given by the civil Court in another.decree dated March 29, 1974. He filed 
an application under Order 39, Rule 1, CPC for ad interim injunction to 
E 
F 
restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment 
of the plaint schedule property situated in village Dabbla Kalan Tehsil 
Fazilka. The interim injunction was granted on June 14, 1991 which sub-
sequently came to be vacated on December 2, 1991. It would appear that 
the defendants alienated the self-sa;ne lands by registered sale deeds dated 
December 2, 1991 and December 12, 1991 in favour of the respondents 
before this Court. On the basis thereof, they sought to come on record as 
defendants under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC. The trial Court dismissed the 
application holding that they were neither necessary nor proper parties to 
the suit. On revision, the High Court in the impugned order in C.R. No. 
323/93, dated May 13, 1993 directed impleadment of the respondent as 
G party defendants to the suit. Thus this appeal by special leave. 
Shri Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellant, conten.ded that the 
claim for declaration of title is founded upon the registered will executed 
by his mother dated May 26, 1952 which was upheld in an earlier suit in 
which the ileclaration and possession was granted and in furtherance 
H thereof the appellant remained in possession. His mother Hira Devi left 
' 
• 
SARVINDERSINGHv. DALIPSINGH 
273 
behind him and three sisters and one of the sisters is Rajender Kaur whose A 
sons are the defendants in the suit. The second suit came to be filed when 
his possession was sought to be interdicted asserting their right lo the 
property through their mother. Pending suit, when they had alienated the 
property to the respondents. It is hit by the d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.