JUDGMENT : 1. These three second appeals are being disposed of by this common order as the suit property is common and the cause of action arising to the parties is also common. SECOND APPEAL No.86/2012: 2. The facts in a nutshell are that the present suit for eviction & recovery of rent was filed by the plaintiff - Manmal, Kanmal and Surendra Mal all sons of Chandmal in respect of a suit property, a `Bara' [ plot of land measuring 63ft. X 63ft.(31.5x31.5 Gaj) ] situated at Jaitaran, opposite Jodhpur-Jaipur Highway, in front of the court premises at Jaitaran. The lease was granted by Chandmal, father of the present plaintiffs in favour of defendant Rampal s/o Bhanwarlal in the year 1970. The said Chandmal expired on 31.12.1982 and the present suit was filed on 19.9.2005 after terminating the lease in favour of defendant by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 on 24.9.2004, which was served on the defendant on 28.9.2004, since he failed to pay the rent in respect of the plot of land in question, which was given at the rate of Rs.30/- p.m. under the last rent note executed on 14.4.1983 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs. The said civil suit no. The said civil suit no. 39/2005 (11/2007) – Manmal & ors vs. Rampal s/o Bhanwarlal came to be decreed by the learned trial court on 12/9/2008 returning the following findings in favour of the plaintiffs on all the issues, which are quoted below for ready reference:- ^^9- bl fook|d ds lac/k esa izLrqr nLrkosth lk{; es ckM+s dk iÍk izn’kZ 7 , tks oknhx.k ds firk pkUney ds uke ls ljiap t;rkj.k ¼jktŒ½ }kjk 6-5-1957 dks tkjhlqnk gS] fdjk;k fpÎh fnaukfdr 24-7-70] izn’kZ&1] HkkM+k fpÎh fnukafdr 3-12-73 izn’kZ 2 ,] HkkM+k fpÎh izn’kZ 3, fnukafdr 22-1-80] fdjk;kukek fnukafdr 29-7-81 izn’kZ 4, o fdjk;k fpÎh izn’kZ 5, fnukafdr 14-4-83 oknhi{k dh vksj ls izLrqr gqbZ gSA bl izdkj oknhi{k dh vksj ls i=koyh ij izLrqr nLrkosth ,oa ekSf[kd lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;g izekf.kr ik;k tkrk gS fd oknhx.k dk ckM+k tSrkj.k esa dksVZ ifjlj ds lkeus tks/kiqj t;iqj jksM+ ij vk;k gqvk gS tks lu 1970 ls 30@& :i;s ekgokj fdjk;s ij izfroknh jkeiky dks fn;k gqvk gSA bl rF; dks Lo;a izfroknh us Hkh vius tokcnkok o lk{; esa Lohdkj fd;k gSA i=koyh ij vkf[kjh HkkM+k fpÎh fnukad 14-4-83 dh izn’kZ 5, izLrqr gqbZ gSA mlds i’pkr~ izfroknh }kjk dksbZ HkkM+k fpÎh oknhx.k ds i{k es fu”ikfnr dh x;h gks] ,slk dksbZ nLrkost i=koyh ij mH; i{kks dh vksj ls izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k gSA vr% i=koyh ij vk;h mDrkuqlkj lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fook|d la-1 dks oknhx.k }kjk vius i{k esa izekf.kr fd;s tkus ls ;g fook|d oknhx.k ds i{k esa fo:) izfroknh r; fd;k tkrk gSA 11- mDr izLrqr oknh lk{; dk leFkZu izLrqr fdjk;k fpÎh izn’kZ 5, ls ik;k tkrk gSA Loa; izfroknh Mh-M- 1 us Hkh ftj es okn izLrqfr ls iwoZ o okn dk fdjk;k cdk;k gksus ds rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gSA fnukad 14-4-83 dh HkkM+k fpÎh izn’kZ 5, dh iq’r ij laor 2040 dh vklksn lqn nwt dks 300@& :i;s o fnukad 2-5-84 dks 90@& :i;s tek gksus ds rF; dk leFkZu izn’kZ 5, o xokg t;flag ih-M+- 2 dh lk{; ls ik;k tkrk gSA ftldk dksbZ [k.M+u izfroknh i{k dh vksj is’k ugh gqvk gSA 2-5-84 ds i’pkr~ dksbZ fdjk;k ckM+s isVs izfroknh }kjk oknhi{k dks vnk fd;k gks] euhvkMZj ls Hkstk gks] fdjk;k gsrq uksfVl oknhi{k dks fn;k x;k gks] ,slk dksbZ nLrkost vFkok lk{; izfroknh i{k dh vksj ls is’k ugh gqbZ gSA bl izdkj i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fook|d la-2 dks oknhx.k }kjk vius i{k esa izekf.kr fd;k x;k gSA vr% ;g fook|d Hkh oknhx.k ds i{k es fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA 12- bl fook|d dks izekf.kr djus dk Hkkj oknhx.k ij gSA bl laca/k es oknh dkuey ih-M+-1 dh lk{; jgh gS fd ckM+k eos’kh cka/kus ds fy, fdjk;s ij fn;k Fkk] vc bl ckM+s esa pk; dh dsfcu nks yxk nh gS o jkeiky o /keZpan us ;g nqdkus dh gSA vc okM+k dkef’kZ;y ;wt esa ys jgs gSA izfrijh{kk es bl lq>ko dk xyr crk;k fd ckM+s es jkeiky dh pk; dh nqdku ugh gksA ;g xyr gS fd ckM+s es izfroknh ds eos’kh c/krs gks o pkjk vkfn Mkyk tkrk gksA izfroknh dh ydfM+;kW eosf’k;ksa ds Nijs cus gq, ugh gSA oknh ds lk{kh fot;jk; ih-M- 3 us viuh lk{; esa dgk fd jkeiky o mldk HkkbZ bl ckM+s es pk; dh gksVys djrs gSA jkeiky ds HkkbZ dk uke /kehZpan gSA ftjg es dgk gS fd bu fnuksa esa izfroknh dh xk;s] HkSls o pkjk oxSjk bl ckM+s es iM+k ugh ns[kkA ckMs+ es gksVy cuh gqbZ gSA izfroknh jkeiky Mh-M- 1 us bl lac/ak esa izfrijh{kk esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd /kehZpna esjk lxk HkkbZ gSA CkkM+s esa nksuks dksuks ij pk; dh gksVy py jgh gSA ,d esjh o ,d /kehZpn dh gSA 13- bl izdkj mDrkuqlkj lk{; bl fook|d ds laca/k es i=koyh ij izLrqr gqbZ gSA Loa; izfroknh jkeiky Mh-M+ 1 us bl rF; dks lk{; esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fookfnr ckM+s esa Lo;a izfroknh o mldk HkkbZ /kehZpan pk; dh nqdkus djrs gS] tks fd Li”V :i ls fdjk;k fpÎh dh ‘krksZ dk mYya?ku gSA Loa; izfroknh dh LOkhdkjksfDr blds fo:) mŸke lk{; gSA bl izdkj ;g fook|d bl :i esa fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gS fd izfroknh }kjk fookfnr ckM+s es pk; dh gksVys yxkdj fdjk;k fpÎh dh ‘krZ dk mYy?kau fd;k x;k o ckM+s dks dkfef’kZ;y ;wt esa fy;k x;k gSA blh vuq:i fook|d oknhx.k ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknh ds fo:) fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA 18- okn ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh izdV gksrk gS fd oknhx.k }kjk izfroknh ds fo:) ;g okn fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e ds rgr is’k ugh dj laifŸk varj.k vf/kfu;e ds rgr is’k fd;k gS] ftlesa csn[kyh ckM+k o olwyh p<k fdjk;k o gtkZuk ckcr vuqrks”k pkgk gSA rqyukRed ijs’kkuh@dfBukbZ dk ifj’khyu djs rks Hkh ;g fLFkfr mHkjdj vkrh gS fd ckM+k Lo;a oknhx.k dk gksdj ml ij edku vkfn cukus dh vko’;drk gksuk oknhx.k }kjk crk;k x;k gS] mDr ckM+s dk mi;ksx izfroknh jkeiky }kjk eos’kh cka/kus] pkjk Mkyus gsrq djuk dgk gS] tcfd Lo;a izfroknh dk >>qUM+k ds ikl ,d IyksV o ?kksfp;ksa ds eksgYys tSrkj.k es Hkh IyksV fLFkr gksuk lk{; ls izdV gqvk gSA izfroknh eos’kh cka/kus] pkjk Mkyus gsrq mDr IyksV dk mi;ksx dj ldrk gS] tcfd oknhx.k ds ikl edku cukus gsrq ;k Lo;a dh vU; futh vko’;drk gsqr vU; dksbZ IyksV@ckM+k ugh gSA izLrqr U;kf;d n`”Vkar ls vf/koDrk oknhx.k ds rdksZ dk cy feyrk gaSA vr% mDrkuqlkj foospu ds vk/kkj ij gekjh jk; es i=koyh ij vk;h lk{; ds vk/kkj ij dEisfjfVo gkMZ’khi dk fcUnq Hkh izfroknh ds i{k esa ugh ik;k tkdj oknhx.k ds i{k esa ik;k tkrk gSaA vr% ;g fook|d Hkh izfroknh ds fo:) o oknhx.k ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA vkns’k 22- ifj.kkeLo:i oknhx.k ekuey o vU; dh vksj ls izLrqr okn fo:) izfroknh jkeiky ds Lohdkj dj fUkEukuqlkj fMØh fd;k tkrk gS % ¼1½ oknhx.k] okn ds in la- 1 es of.kZr iM+kslks ds e/; dk ckM+k ¼uksgjk½ dk dCtk fu.kZ; dh fnukad 12-9-08 ls rhu ekg dh vof/k esa izfroknh ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA ¼2½ oknhx.k] izfroknh ls okn is’k djus dh fnukad 19-9-05 rd p<+s fdjk;s gtkZus ds :i;s 1080@& o mDr jkf’k ij dCtk lqiqnZ djus rd 6 izfr’kr okf”kZd nj ls lk/kkj.k C;kt Hkh izkIr djsaxs rFkk oknhx.k okn izLrqfr dh fnuakd ls ckM+s dk dCtk izkIr gksus rd 30@& v{kjs rhl :i;s izfrekg dh nj ls ;wt ,.M ,D;wis’k ds gtkZus ds :i esa izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksxsaA ¼3½ oknhx.k] izfroknh ls okn [kpkZ Hkh izkIr dj ldsaxsA mlh vuq:i fMØh ipkZ dk;e fd;k tkosA Sd/- ¼t;izdk’k ukjk;.k iqjksfgr½ flfoy U;k;k/kh’k ¼o-[k-½ tSrkj.k ftyk ikyh ¼jktŒ½^^ 3. The first appeal filed by the defendant-lessee No.19/2008 – Rampal vs. Manmal & Ors. also came to be dismissed by the first appellate court of Addl. The first appeal filed by the defendant-lessee No.19/2008 – Rampal vs. Manmal & Ors. also came to be dismissed by the first appellate court of Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Pali on 3/3/2012 affirming the findings of the learned trial court in the following manner:- ^^fook|d laŒ 4 o 6 nksuks fook|d vuqrks”k ls lEcfU/kr gSA laifŸk varj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 106 ds v/khu is’k fd;s x;s ekeys esa fdjk;snkj dks fdjk;snkjh lekfIr dk uksfVl fn;k tkuk gh egRoiw.kZ gS ,oa bl lUnHkZ esa fook|d dh fojpuk vko’;d FkhA ysfdu nksuksa i{kks }kjk bl fcUnw ij viuh viuh vksj ls iw.kZ lk{; is’k dh tk pqdh gSA oknh us viuh ekSf[kd lk{; esa ;s Li”V dFku fd;k gS fd izfroknh izn’kZ&8 fn;k x;k] ftldh Mkd jlhn izn’kZ&9 gS] ftu ij izfroknh jkeiky ds , ls ch gLrk{kj gS] vFkkZr~ uksfVl izfroknh dks izkIr gks x;kA uksfVl ds lanHkZ es oknh ls ftjg Hkh dh x;hA mDr uksfVl esa O;kikj cnyus o futh vko’;drk ds rF; ds mYys[k dh vko’;drk ugh Fkh vkSj u gh fof/k :i ls vf/kfu;e esa ,slk mYys[k dh vko’;drk ugh Fkh vkSj ugh fof/kd :i ls vf/kfu;e esa ,slk dksbZ izko/kku gSA izfroknh ls Hkh ekSf[kd dFku dh ftjg esa uksfVl ckcr~ iz’u fd;s x;s ,oa izfroknh us uksfVl feyuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA vFkkZr~ laifŸk vUrj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 106 ds v/khu fu;ekuqlkj uksfVl fn;k x;k ,oa nkok nk;jh ds le; nksuksa i{kks dh vksj ls bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k x;kA nksuks i{kks }kjk bl lUnHkZ esa viuh viuh lk{; Hkh is’k dh tk pqdh gSA ,ao v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk vius fu.kZ; ds ist laŒ11 in la- 19 o 20 esa uksfVl ckcr~ izLrqr lk{; ,oa fof/k ds izko/kkuksa dk Li”V foospu djrs gq;s viuk fofu’p; fn;k x;k gSA bl lanHkZ esa vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ }kjk U;k;n`”VkUr esa ;s vfHkfu.khZr fd;k x;k fd ;fn fdjk;snkj yEcs le; ls fdjk;s dk Hkqxrku ugh dj jgk gS rks og lkE;k ds fl)kUr ds vk/kkj ij vuqrks”k izkIr ugh dj ldrk gSA izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls U;k;n`”Vkar 2009¼1½ vkj ts Vh 294 is’k fd;k x;kA mDr U;k;n`”VkUr esa ;g vfHkfu.khZr fd;k x;k fd laifr varj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 106 ds v/khu uksfVl nsdj fdjk;snkjh dks lekIr fd;k tk ldrk gSaA U;k;n`”VkUr 2010¼3½ Mh ,u ts jktŒ 1236 esa ekuuh; jktŒ mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g vfHkfu.khZr fd;k x;k fd laifr vraj.k vf/kfu;e dh 106 ds v/khu uksfVl nsdj fdjk;snkjh lekIr dh tk ldrh gS ,oa edku ekfyd cdk;k fdjk;k o laifr dk dCtk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA vra es U;k;n`”VkUr 2010 ¼3½ Mh ,u ts jktŒ 873 is’k fd;k x;kA mDr U;k;n`”Vkar esa vfHkfu.khZr fd;k x;k fd /kkjk 106 laifr varj.k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu fn;s x;s uksfVl es csn[kyh pkgus gsrq dkj.k mYysf[kr djuk vko’;d ugh gSA vFkkZr~ flQZ uksfVl ls gh fdjk;snkjh lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA uksfVl ds rF; ds lanHkZ es nksuks i{kks dh vksj ls lk{; is’k dh tk pqdh gS ,oa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fofu’p; Hkh vk pqdk gSA ,slh lwjr es flQZ uksfVl ds fcUnw ij fook|dksa dh jpuk dj i=koyh dks fjek.M djuk U;kf;d izfØ;k dk nq:i;ksx ek= gksxkA i=koyh ij miYkC/k lk{; ls oknhx.k }kjk fof/kor~ :i ls uksfVl izn’kZ&8 nsdj fdjk;snkjh dks lekIr dj fn;k x;k gSA nksuksa i{kks dh lk{; Hkh vk pqdh gSA bl lanHkZ esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; izLrqr lk{; ,oa fof/k ds vuq:i gSA ftlesa gLr{ksi dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugh gSA vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy esa dksbZ lkj ugh gSA vr% vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns’k ifj.kker% vihy vihykFkhZ izfroknh fo:) izR;FkhZx.k oknhx.k [kkfjt dh tkrh gS ,oa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o vkKfIr fnukad 12-9-2008 dh iqf”V dh tkrh gSA vihy dk ifjO;; mHk; i{k viuk viuk cnkZ’r djsaxsA vkKfIr dh jpuk dh tkosA fu.kZ; izfr lfgr fopkj.k dk vfHkys[k vfoyEc izsf”kr gksA Sd/- ¼meka’kadj ‘kekZ½ vij ftyk U;k;k/kh’k ¼QkŒ VªsŒ½ laŒ ,d ikyh eq[;ky; tSrkj.k ftyk ikyh jktŒ^^ 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant-lessee filed the present second appeal in this Court on 9/4/2012, which was admitted by a coordinate bench of this Court on 18/7/2012 and the following substantial questions of law framed earlier while issuing show cause notice on 24/4/2012 are quoted below for ready reference:- “(i) Whether the learned Appellate Court and the learned trial court has failed to grant the permission to the appellant for depositing the arrear of rent as tender made by him in para No.3 of written statement? (ii) Whether the learned Appellate Court and the learned trial court has properly considered the provision of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act?” 5. Later on, another coordinate bench of this court fixed the mesne profits @ Rs.5000/- per month vide order dated 7/5/2013 and, thereafter, the appeal was directed to be listed for final hearing along with connected appeals CSA No.335/2008 – LRs of Bhanwarlal vs. Manmal & ors. & CSA No.52/2008 – LRs of Bhanwarlal vs. Manmal & Ors.. SECOND APPEAL NO.335/2008 & SECOND APPEAL NO.52/2008 6. The facts arising from these two second appeals are common and the judgment of the courts below are also common, therefore, for the purpose of disposal of these appeals, the facts are noticed from CSA No.335/2008. 7. Civil suits No.162/84 (245/96) & 51/2001 – Manmal s/o Chandmal & ors. vs. Bhanwarlal s/o Malaram & anr. were filed by the plaintiffs on 28/9/1984 seeking mandatory and prohibitory injunction against the defendants not to encroach upon the northern side passage/way behind the plot of land measuring 63ft. X 63ft (31.5x31.5 Gaj) situated at Jaitaran, Opposite Court premises, which was given on lease by Chandmal, father of the present plaintiffs to the defendant Rampal s/o Bhanwarlal and for which the eviction suit, as aforesaid, was filed out of which the aforesaid Second Appeal No.86/2012 – Rampal vs Manmal & ors., as stated above, arose. The encroachment was purportedly made by the defendants on the northern back side of the plot in question, which was given on lease, while on the southern side the main highway of Jodhpur-Jaipur passes and on the opposite side of the highway, the court premises of Jaitaran are situated. 8. The encroachment was purportedly made by the defendants on the northern back side of the plot in question, which was given on lease, while on the southern side the main highway of Jodhpur-Jaipur passes and on the opposite side of the highway, the court premises of Jaitaran are situated. 8. The plaintiffs claimed that in the Patta issued in favour of their father by the Gram Panchayat, Jaitaran way back on 6/5/1957,Ex.1, a passage of 12 `Gaj' (24 ft.) wide was shown on the back side of the said plot on the back northern side, which was sought to be encroached by the defendant by putting up the `stone pattis' and for which the present injunction suit was filed and during the pendency of the suit, since the defendants illegally got a `Patta' issued by the Municipal Council, Jaitaran in their favour for the said encroached land on 7/2/1986, by amending the plaint a prayer for cancellation of Patta was also made in the present suit. After the trial, the suit partly came to be decreed by the trial court and finding the encroachment made by the defendants, the learned trial court directed the removal of the encroachment and leaving the passage of 12 Gaj (24 ft.) on the northern side of the plot of land of plaintiffs while the prayer for cancellation of Patta was turned down by the learned trial court since the trial court found that it could not be established by the plaintiffs that the said Patta was issued without following the due procedure of law. Though the defendants filed an application for impleadment of Municipal Council, Jaitaran also as party in the said suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC but the said application was also rejected by the learned trial court. 9. Being aggrieved by the said order, both the parties filed appeals before the first appellate court of Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Pali, namely Appeal No. 88/2005 – Bhanwar Lal through L.Rs vs. Manmal & ors., and Appeal No.89/2005 – Manmal & ors. vs. Bhanwar Lal through L.Rs. The defendant's appeal came to be dismissed but plaintiff's appeal was allowed by the learned first appellate court on 23/10/2007. District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Pali, namely Appeal No. 88/2005 – Bhanwar Lal through L.Rs vs. Manmal & ors., and Appeal No.89/2005 – Manmal & ors. vs. Bhanwar Lal through L.Rs. The defendant's appeal came to be dismissed but plaintiff's appeal was allowed by the learned first appellate court on 23/10/2007. The relevant findings of the learned trial court while partly decreeing the suit as well as those of first appellate court are quoted below for ready reference:- Relevant extract of findings of the learned trial court ^^12%& mijksDr lk{; dk lexzrk ls foospu djs rks tSlkfd okn ds rF;kuqlkj oknh ds Fkkys ds mŸkj esa 12 xth jkLrk gksuk crk;k gSA bl ifjis{; esa ekSf[kd lk{; esa Loa; oknh us vius dFku fd;s o oknh ds vU; xokgks us vius dFku fd;s gSA nLrkosth lk{; dk voyksdu djs rks oknh us vius Fkkys dk iÍk izn’kZ&1 is’k fd;k gS] tks fnukad 6-5-57 dks xzke iapk;r] tSrkj.k }kjk oknhx.k ds firk pkaney ds uke ls tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA ftl iÍs dh iq’r ij Hkwfe dk fooj.k vafdr gSaA ftlesa okys dh yEckbZ] pkSM+kbZ 31-5 xq.kk 31-5 xt crk;h x;h gSA bl Fkkys ds iM+kSl esa tks vafdr fd;s x;s gS] muesa Øe laŒ 3 es mrj es 12 xt dk jkLrk of.kZr gS rFkk izfroknh jkeiky ds }kjk oknhx.k ds i{k es tks fdjk;k fpÎh izn’kZ&2] izn’kZ&3] izn’kZ&4] izn’kZ&5 fu”ikfnr dh x;h gS] mu lHkh fdjk;k fpfÎ;ksa esa mŸkj fn’kk esa ckM+s dk fudkl jkLrk crk;k x;k gSA bldk rkRi;Z ;g gqvk fd Lo;a izfroknh us Hkh viuh fdjk;k fpfÎ;ksa esa mŸkj dh vksj jkLrs gksus ds rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS] gkykafd ,slk dksbZ vfHkys[k rFkk jktLo fjdkMZ@xksokbZ jsdM+Z dks izLrqr ugh gqvk gS fd m/kj jkLrk gS ;k ugh\ ysfdu tks nLrkostkr i=koyh esa miyC/k gS rFkk izfroknh us Hkh ftu nLrkostkr dks oknh ds i{k esa fu”ikfnr fd;k gS] tSls HkkM+k fpÎh vkfn ftuls bl LVst ij ;g rks Li”V gS fd oknh ds Fkkys ds mŸkj es 12 xth jkLrk gSA mHk;i{k dh lk{; esa ;g rF; Hkh vk;k gS fd bl Fkkys LFkku ds ckn vkx 15 & 20 QhV pkSM+k jkLrk gS] tks jkLrk ;gka ls ‘kq: gksdj vkxs lekf/k;ksa rd tkrk gSA bldk rkRi;Z ;g gqvk gS fd oknh ds Fkkys ds mŸkj okyk jkLrk vkxs tkdj eq[; jkLrk esa feyrk gSA 13- Tkgka rd oknh ds Fkkys ds mŸkj dh vksj izfroknhx.k ds }kjk dsywiksl Nijk cukdj rFkk [kkn dh ÅdM+h vkfn Mkydj jkLrk can djus dh ckr gSA bl lEcU/k esa oknh us Lo;a dks rks dFku fd;s gh gS] lkFk gh izfroknh ds }kjk Hkh vius c;kuksa o vfHkopuksa esa ;g dgk gS fd mldk dsywiksl iM+ok cuk gqvk gSA [kkn dh ÅdM+h gS] gkykfd izfroknh us mDr oknh ds Fkkys ds mŸkj fn’kk ds LFkku dks uxjikfydk }kjk iÍk nsus dh ckr dgha gSA D;k izfroknh ds }kjk mDr tehu ij vfrØe.k fd;k x;k ;k ugha\ bl LVst ij ;g iz’u xkS.k gS ysfdu tks lk{; i=koyh ij vk;h gS] mlesa oknhx.k dk mŸkj fn’kk dh vksj 12 xth jkLrk gksuk rFkk ml Hkwfe ij izfroknh ds }kjk dsywiksl iM+ok] [kkn dh ÅdM+h Mkyh tkuk izekf.kr ik;k tkrk gSA bl izdkj fook|d fcUnq la[;k 3] 4] 5 oknh ds i{k esa izekf.kr ik;s tkrs gSA 14%& tgka rd fook|d fcUnq laŒ 8 dk iz’u gSA bl laca/k esa izfroknh dh vksj ls ,slh dksbZ lk{; Li”V :i ls izLrqr ugha gqbZ gSA fd mldk lu~ 1971 ;s igys gh mDr [kqYys LFkku ij dCtk jgk gks ysfdu nkos dh fnukad dks mlds }kjk mDr Hkwfe ij dsywiksl iM+ok cuk;k o [kkn dks ÅdM+h M+kydj vkf/kiR; fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj lu~ 1971 ls igys ds dCts ckcr Li”V dksbZ lk{; ugh gSA vxj mlds iÍs dks vk/kkj ekuk Hkh tkos rks bl iÍs ds lEcU/k esa tks dk;Zokgh fnukad 17&11&83 dks lEikfnr gqbZ] mlesa mi&ftyk/kh’k us dCtk ugha ekurs gq;s o [kqYyk LFkku ekurs gq;s fu;eu dh dk;Zokgh ugh dh x;h rFkk izkFkZuki= dks [kkfjt fd;k x;k tks izn’kZ&7] izn’kZ&8 o izn’kZ&9 ls izekf.kr gksrk gSA bl izdkj ;g fook|d fcUnw izfroknh ds fo:) fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA 15%& ¼fook|d fcUnw laŒ6½ bl fcUnq dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj oknh ij Fkk] blesa oknh dks ;g lkfcr djuk Fkk fd izfroknhx.k us jkLrs dh tehu ij vfØe.k dj uxjikfydk ls fnukad 7&2&86 dks iÍk gkfly dj fy;k] tks iÍk dkfcy eUlq[k gSA ;g Lohd`r fLFkfr gS fd izfroknh us oknh ds Fkkys ds mŸkj esa [kqyh tehu ij vkf/kiR; fd;k gqvk gS tks oknh o izfroknh lk{; ls lkfcr gSA oknh dk ;g rdZ jgk gS fd izfroknh us uxjikfydk ls lkaB&xkaB dj jkLrs dh tehu dk iÍk izkIr dj fy;k gSA oknh ds uD’ks esa tks iSekbZ’k nh x;h gS] og fQVks esa nh x;h gSA ftlds vuqlkj mldk iÍklqnk Fkkyk 63 xq.kk 63 QhV dk gSA iÍs esa 31-5 xt xq.kk 31-5 xt dk crk;k x;k gSA oknh ds LokfeRo ,oa vkf/kiR; ds Fkkys ds izfroknh crkSj fdjk;snkj ds dkfct gSA ftl jkLrs Hkwfe dk fookn oknh ysdj vk;s gS] og jkLrs dh Hkwfe gS ;k iM+r tehu gSA ;g rks Li”V ugh gS ysfdu ;g Lohd`r fLFkfr gS fd tks oknxzLRk LFkYk crk;k x;k gS] mlesa oknh dk LokfeRo fufgr ugha gS rFkk oknh ds iÍs dh iq’r ij tks iSekbZ’k o iM+kSl vafdr fd;s gS] mlesa 12 xt dk jkLrk mŸkj esa crk;k x;k gSaA tks/kiqj&tiqj ekxZ ij eq[; fudkl gS] mlds ihNs dksbZ fudkl ugha gSA ;g t:jh ugh gS fd fdlh vkoklh; LFky dk ,d vkSj gh fudkl gks] mlds fudkl ,d ls vf/kd fn’kkvksa es Hkh gks ldrs gSA 16%& tgka rd fo}ku vf/koDrk oknhx.k dk ;g dguk fd izfroknh us jkLrs dh tehu dk iÍk izkIr dj fy;k gSA ,slk dksbZ vfHkys[k uk rks oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;s x;s gS] tks dksbZ xksokbZ jsdMZ ;k dksbZ jsosU;w dh Hkwfe crk;k gksA dsoy oknh ds iÍs dh iq’r ij jkLrk gksuk vadu gSA blds vykok ,slk dksbZ yksd nLrkost ugha gS] ftlesa mDr Hkwfe dks jkLrk dh tehu gksuk of.kZr gksA fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh us cgl ds nkSjku U;kf;d n`”Vkar vkj-,y-MCY;w- 1994 ¼jktLFkku ist&360¼2½ vkj-vkj-Mh- 1991 ist&451 ¼3½ Mh-,u-ts- 2001 ist&426 izLrqr dh gS rFkk rdZ fn;k gS fd jkLrs dh Hkwfe dks foØ; fd;k tk ldrk gSA mijksDr U;kf;d uthjks dk llEeku voyksdu djus ij izLrqr U;kf;d uthjksa es tks fl}kUr izfrikfnr fd;s x;s gS] muls eSa iw.kZr;k lger gwW ysfdu gLrxr izdj.k esa ,slh dksbZ vfHkys[kh; lk{; vFkkZr~ dksbZ fjdkMZ izLrqr ugh gqvk gS] ftlls ;g ekuk tk lds fd oknxzLr LFky jkLrs dh Hkwfe dk gh gS] blfy;s tc rd ;g lkfcr ugh gks fd jkLrs dh Hkwfe ij iÍk tkjh fd;k x;k] rc rd ml iÍs dh oS/krk ;k voS/krk ds ckjs esa dksbZ fu”d”kZ ugh fudkyk tk ldrk gSA 17%& fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh us cgl esa fuosnu fd;k fd fof/k ds vkns’kks dh vogsyk djrs gq,s rFkk mi&ftyk/kh’k }kjk fnukad 17-11-83 dks izfroknh ds fu;eu ds izkFkZuki= dks [kkfjt djus ds mijkUr pS;jesu uxjikfydk us feyhHkxr djds o izfroknh laŒ2 ds ik”kZn gksus ds dkj.k mlds firk ds uke ls izfroknh laŒ 1 ds gd es iÍk tkjh dj fn;kA ;g lgh gS fd i=koyh es tks vfHkys[k izn’kZ&7] izn’kZ&8] izn’kZ&9 izLrqr gq;s gS muds }kjk izfroknh ds izkFkZuki= dks iz’kklu ‘kgjksa dh vksj vfHk;ku esa LVst ij fnukad 7&2&86 dks uxjikfydk e.My us izfroknh laŒ 1 ds uke ls iÍk tkjh fd;k gSA iÍk tkjh djus ds fy;s tks fof/kd izfØ;k viuk;h tkuh pkfg;s] D;k ml izfØ;k dks viuk;k x;k ;k ugh\ D;k fcuk izfØ;k ds gh iÍk tkjh fd;kA bl izdj.k esa i{kdkj gS vkSj uk gh iÍk tkjh djus ds fy;s tks fof/kd izfØ;ka viuk;h x;h gS] mldk gh dksbZ vfHkys[k oknh us is’k fd;k gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fcuk vfHkys[k ds fooknxzLRk LFky jkLrs dh tehu gS ;k ugh RkFkk iÍk tkjh djus ds izfØ;k ds vfHkys[k ;k dk;Zokgh ds vHkko esa ;g ugh ekuk tk ldrk fd iÍk fof/k fo:) izfØ;k viuk;h tkdj tkjh fd;k x;kA bl izdkj esjh jk; es oknh bl fcUnw dks izekf.kr djus es foQy jgs gSA 18%& ¼fook|d fcUnw laŒ7½ D;k oknh ekfQd nkok es.MsVjh o izksghfcVjh batsD’ku dh o iÍk jÌ dh fMØh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ & tSlkfd mijksDr fcUnwvks ds fcUnwokj foospu djus ij ;g ik;k x;k gS fd oknh dk mlds Fkkys ds ihNs mŸkj dh vksj 12 xt dk jkLrk gS ysfdu iÍk jÌ djus ds lac/k esa fCkUnw laŒ6 oknh ds fo:) fuf.kZr gqvk gS blfy;s oknh dsoy ek= fu”ks/kkKk dh fMØh gh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS] vr% ;g fcUnw vkaf’kd :i ls oknh ds i{k esa fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA fcUnw laŒ 7 vuqrks”k ls lacf/kr gSA pawfd oknh us vf/kdrj fcUnw vius i{k esa lkfcr fd;s gSA iÍk fujLr djus dk fcUnw oknh ds fo:) fuf.kZr gqvk gSA bl izdkj oknh dk okn izfroknhx.k ds fo:) vakf’kd :i ls fMØh fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 19%& vkns’k vr% oknh dk okn fo:) izfroknhx.k LFkk;h fu”ks/kkKk dk vakf’kd :i ls fMØh fd;k tkdj vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS fd izfroknhx.k okni= ds in la 1 esa of.kZr oknhx.k ds Fkkys ds mŸkj es tks 12 xt dk jkLrk crk;k x;k gS] mlesa ls mldks vkus tkus es dksbZ :dkoV] ck/kk iSnk ugh djs rFkk jkLrs es Å[kjaM+h vkfn ugh MkysA [kpkZ eqdnek i{kdkjku viuk viuk ogu djsA mijksDrkuqlkj ipkZ fMØh cuk;k tkosA Sd/- ¼vfuydqekj ‘kekZ½ flfoy U;k;k/kh’k ¼ofj”B [k.M½ ftyk&ikyh ¼jktŒ½^^ 10. The defendants Rampal & Bhanwarlal, father & son duo filed the present second appeal No.335/2008 in this Court on 21/1/2008 while the connected second appeal No.52/2008 was filed by the defendants on 10/12/2007. 11. The following substantial questions of law were framed by the coordinate bench of this Court in these two appeals on 5/4/2013:- “(1) Whether the findings recorded by the appellate court on issue nos. 6 & 7 are perverse? (2) Whether the appellate court has materially erred in misinterpreting the provisions contained in Order 1 Rule 10 and in holding that the Municipality was not the necessary party to the suit? (3) Whether the appellate court has materially erred in mis-appreciating the evidence on record and in canceling the patta in respect of the suit land issued in favour of the appellants by the Municipality?” 12. Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yashpal Khileree represent the defendant/appellants – Rampal & Bhanwarlal in Second Appeal No. 335/2008 and 52/2008, while Mr. R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel represents the defendant-appellants in Second Appeal No. 86/2012. Mr. O.P. Mehta, learned counsel represents the plaintiff-respondents in all the three appeals. 13. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record of the case and the judgments cited at the bar. 14. Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel represents the defendant-appellants in Second Appeal No. 86/2012. Mr. O.P. Mehta, learned counsel represents the plaintiff-respondents in all the three appeals. 13. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record of the case and the judgments cited at the bar. 14. Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellant-defendants, with the help of map of the site in question, vehemently submitted that the plot of land allotted in favour of the defendants, of which the Patta was issued in the year 1986 on 7/2/1986 by the Municipal Council, Jaitaran could not be cancelled by the learned first appellate court, even though the trial court had refused to grant the said relief to the plaintiffs, since on the basis of long possession of the defendants, the Municipal Council had issued the said Patta in favour of the defendants and plaintiffs were wrong in contending before the learned courts below that there was a 12 Gaj (24 ft.) wide passage on the northern side behind their plot of land allotted by the Gram Panchayat in their favour on 6/5/1957, since the northern side adjacent to the plot of the defendants, of which Patta was issued by the Municipal Council, Jaitaran on 7/2/1986, other persons were also allotted other plots of land by the same Municipal Council, Jaitaran and northern side way leading to `Shamshan' was after the plot of defendants and, therefore, the `Patta' could not be cancelled by the first appellate court. He also submitted that without impleading the Municipal Council, Jaitaran as a party respondent in the present suit for injunction filed by the plaintiffs, the Patta issued in favour of the defendants could not be cancelled and, therefore, the substantial questions of law framed above deserve to be answered in favour of the defendants and the present second appeals No.335/2008 & 52/2008 of the defendants deserve to be allowed. However, about eviction case arising in second appeal no. 86/2012 - Rampal s/o Bhanwar Lal vs. Manmal s/o Chandmal & Ors., Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate submitted that learned counsel Mr. R.S. Choudhary has the instructions and his arguments are limited to the other appeals only. 15. Mr. However, about eviction case arising in second appeal no. 86/2012 - Rampal s/o Bhanwar Lal vs. Manmal s/o Chandmal & Ors., Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate submitted that learned counsel Mr. R.S. Choudhary has the instructions and his arguments are limited to the other appeals only. 15. Mr. R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant in CSA No.86/2012, opposing the impugned decree of ejectment and eviction submitted that the defendant was always ready and willing to pay rent in question to the plaintiffs under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act and since the plaintiffs failed to accept the same, therefore, termination of the lease by the plaintiffs was illegal and wrong and the decree of eviction, therefore, deserves to be reversed by this court, allowing the defendant's appeal no. 86/2012. 16. Per contra, Mr. O.P. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsels for the defendant-appellants and relying upon the various case laws, he submitted that as far as the termination of lease for the plot of land is concerned, since the Rent Control Law did not apply to the said place Jaitaran at the relevant point of time and the lease was duly terminated after properly serving the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, therefore, the defendants were bound to handover the possession of the plot of land to the plaintiffs and the concurrent decree of the learned courts below deserves to be upheld and the second appeal no. 86/2012 filed by defendant Rampal deserves to be dismissed as actually no substantial questions of law arise in the present case and the questions as framed in the matter deserve to be answered in favour of the plaintiff-respondents and the possession of the suit plot deserves to be given back to the plaintiffs. He also disputed & denied the averment that defendants ever paid any agreed rent to the plaintiffs, therefore, recourse under Section 114 of the Act was not available to them. 17. Opposing the submissions of Mr. G.R. Punia in Civil Second Appeal No. 335/2008 and Civil Second Appeal No. 52/2008, Mr. He also disputed & denied the averment that defendants ever paid any agreed rent to the plaintiffs, therefore, recourse under Section 114 of the Act was not available to them. 17. Opposing the submissions of Mr. G.R. Punia in Civil Second Appeal No. 335/2008 and Civil Second Appeal No. 52/2008, Mr. O.P.Mehta urged that during the pendency of the litigation, issuance of Patta in favour of the defendants by the Municipal Council, Jaitaran on 7/2/1986 was hit by principle of lis pendens and also that Municipal Council, Jaitaran had no jurisdiction to issue Patta of the land adjacent for the passage/way, which was shown in the `Patta' issued in favour of the plaintiffs in 1957 by the Gram Panchayat, Jaitaran, as also the Rent Note executed by the defendant themselves, which was an undisputed fact duly proved by the various documentary and oral evidence before the learned trial court. He also submitted that the order rejecting the application of the defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and not impleading the Municipal Council, Jaitaran as a party defendant in the present case by the learned trial court was never challenged by the defendants further and, therefore, that order was allowed to become final. He also relied upon the case laws to urge that vendor (Municipal Council, Jaitaran) in such cases was not a necessary party even though it could be called a proper party in such cases and the Patta could be and rightly cancelled by the learned civil court or the appellate court, since the Municipal Council had no jurisdiction to issue the said Patta in respect of the land of passage/way. He, therefore, submitted that such findings of fact about encroachment made by the defendants and which was purportedly shown as long possession of the defendants before the Municipal Council, where the defendant Rampal himself was a Municipal Corporator, such `Patta' in their favour was issued for extraneous reasons in a camp known as ^iz’kklu ‘kgjksa dh vksj^ without following due procedure of law & rather earlier negative order was passed by learned SDO dated 17/11/1983 (Ex.7) and, therefore, the said `Patta' was rightly cancelled by the appellate court, since the trial court failed to grant the said relief to the plaintiffs though claimed by amending the plaint during the course of the trial. He relied on the following cases:- (i) Bhairon Bux vs. Hazari Mal & ors. He relied on the following cases:- (i) Bhairon Bux vs. Hazari Mal & ors. - 1960 ILR 305; (ii) Hardeva vs. Ismail & ors. - AIR 1970 Rajasthan 167; (iii) Shri Paresar vs. Municipal Board, Mount Abu – (1997) 1 RLW (Raj.) 125; (iv) Union of India vs. Moksh Builders & Financiers Ltd. - AIR 1977 SC 409 ; (v) Lakshmanan vs. Kamal – AIR 1959 Kerala 67, and (vi) Ahmed Ali Khan Bahadur vs. Banguluru Veeralla & ors. - AIR 1959 AP 280 . 18. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record of the case carefully and the judgments cited at the bar. 19. In the considered opinion of this Court, all the three second appeals filed by the defendants deserve dismissal and the substantial questions of law framed by the coordinate bench deserve to be answered in favour of the plaintiff respondents and against the defendants. The reasons are as follows. 20. As far as the eviction after termination of lease by serving a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is concerned, no specific ground has been made out by the defendants for showing either the notice to be invalid or termination of lease to be improper or illegal in any manner. The conditions for invoking Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act was never established by the defendant lessee before the courts below. The title of the plaintiff is not in dispute and the non-applicability of the Rent Control Act law to the said area at the relevant point of time is also not in dispute. Therefore, there was no question of granting any further opportunity to the defendant to deposit the rent to keep the lease surviving in their favour and, therefore, the proposed substantial questions of law for which show cause notice was issued by the coordinate bench in CSA No.86/2012 on 24/4/2012, deserve to be answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. They are so answered & the said second appeal No. 86/2012 is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 21. They are so answered & the said second appeal No. 86/2012 is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 21. The appellant-defendant-tenant shall hand over the peaceful & vacant possession of the suit premises or plot of land (Bara) to the defendant-plaintiff within a period of six months from today i.e. on or before 31st October, 2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.5,000/- per month from May, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondent-plaintiff and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of six months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant-defendant-tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant-tenant or person in possession shall also further not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit premises or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and the same would be treated as void & such third party will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant-tenant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the respondent-landlady within a period of six months from today or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the respondent-plaintiff shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. 22. As far as second appeal No.335/2008 and 52/2008 are concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the issuance of `Patta' in favour of defendants by the Municipal Council, Jaitaran was absolutely illegal and was hit by the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 22. As far as second appeal No.335/2008 and 52/2008 are concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the issuance of `Patta' in favour of defendants by the Municipal Council, Jaitaran was absolutely illegal and was hit by the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. There is no dispute from the evidence on record that on the northern back side of the leased plot by the plaintiff in question measuring 63'x63' (31.5x31.5 Gaj), there was a passage of 12 Gaj (24 ft. wide). The said passage could not obviously be allotted by the Municipal Council, Jaitaran in favour of the defendant in a hot haste manner without following the due procedure of law. It appears that the defendants themselves sought the support of the Municipal Council, Jaitaran by seeking its impleadment in the present suit but that application was rejected by the learned trial court on 8/3/2002 and that order was allowed to become final by the defendants without any further challenge. The plaintiffs had to amend the plaint and seek the relief for cancellation of Patta also since the present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 28/9/1984 and the `Patta' in question was issued in favour of defendants on 7/2/1986. The power of the civil court to cancel such illegal Patta cannot be questioned. Such power indisputably vests in the civil courts. Once the trial court had found that the defendants had made the encroachment over the backside or the northern side of the plot of the plaintiffs in question, obviously it was a case of encroachment only as no peaceful long possession of the defendants could be established so as to claim any `Patta' from the Municipal Council on that basis. Moreover, the issuance of `Patta' was in conflict with the undisputed passage of 12 Gaj (24 ft. wide) shown in the `Patta' issued in favour of the plaintiffs way back on 6/5/1957 & Rent Note executed by the defendants themselves and no proceedings of Municipal Council, Jaitaran were produced before the courts below to show that the `Patta' was issued after considering the said fact of existence of passage of 12 Gaj (24 ft.) or earlier rejection order of learned SDO Ex.7 dated 17/11/1983. Merely because the defendants contend that Pattas were issued in favour of other persons also on the parallel land on the eastern and western side of their plot that does not validate and justify the issuance of the `Patta' in favour of defendants, as their cases may be different and nature of their possession etc. may also be different. Even the validity of such other Pattas may be questioned. However, presently, there is no other relevant document available on record in the present case to make any adverse comment on the `Pattas' issued in favour of other persons but the issuance of `Patta' in favour of present defendants on the basis of their alleged long & peaceful possession over the said passage clearly falls foul and flies in the face of the findings returned by the trial court itself about there being a passage of 12 Gaj (24 ft. wide) at the backside or the northern side of the plot of plaintiffs and the encroachment made by the defendants on the said back side portion. 23. The provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act has been lucidly explained in Lakshmanan vs. Kamal – AIR 1959 Kerala 67 in the following manner:- “The effect of S.52 is to render void as against the decree-holder in a suit in which any right to immovable property was in dispute and entitled him to ignore all transfers or other dealing with it by the judgment-debtor from the time of the institution of the suit till the complete satisfaction or discharge of the decree which would affect the decree-holder's right under the decree or any order made in the suit. The explanation specifically enjoins that the prohibition against transfers or dealings is to take effect from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction and remain in force until complete satisfaction or discharge of the decree has been obtained or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed by law. If a transfer or other dealing with a suit property pendente lite is void as against the decree-holder and he is entitled to ignore it and it cannot affect his rights under the decree, no purpose will be served by bringing on record, after the transfer, the transferee or the person in whose favour the property has been dealt with, should be brought on record in such cases, would only be to hold out a premium to persons who desire to escape from their legal obligations and unnecessarily protect legal proceedings, and would defeat the very purpose for which S.52 has been enacted. Section 52 is not confined to transfers and expressly prohibits both transfers and “other dealings” with the suit property. Explanation to S.52 is wide enough to include all transfers and dealing with the property made during pendency of the suit in trial and appellate courts as well as execution proceedings.” 24. Similarly, Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ahmed Ali Khan Bahadur vs. Ganguluru Veeralla & Ors. - AIR 1959 AP 280 reiterated these principles in the following manner:- “The principle of lis pendens enforced in England both by courts of law and equity is embodied in S.52. The section does not declare that all the transfers made pendente lite are null and void but what is provided for is that such transfers will be subject to the decree or order passed or made in the suit. In other words the transfer will be subservient to the decree or order.” 25. About Municipal Council being not a necessary party in the present case, this Court in Bhairon Bux vs. Hazari Mal – 1960 ILR 305 has clearly held that a vendor is not a necessary party where a third person claims superior right both against the vendor and the vendee. The relevant extract of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference: “Under the law a vendor is not a necessary party, where a third person claims superior right both against the vendor and the vendee, and institutes a suit to safeguard his rights against the vendee. It is up to the vendee to support his title by showing that the vendor had a better title than the plaintiff; but for this reason the vendor is not a necessary party. It is up to the vendee to support his title by showing that the vendor had a better title than the plaintiff; but for this reason the vendor is not a necessary party. The plaintiff's sole object can be to safeguard his rights against the vendee defendant who has by obtaining a sale from the vendor thrown a cloud on the title of the plaintiff.” 26. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiffs, Mr. O.P. Mehta also relied on a Division Bench Judgment in the case of Baltej Singh & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. - 2007 (3) WLC 193. In a public interest litigation, the Division Bench of this Court held that the Municipal Board has no power to alienate portions of public road by way of lease, sale or regularisation. 27. In Citizens of Bundi vs. Municipal Board, Bundi – AIR 1988 Rajasthan 132, the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the Municipal Law expressly prohibits sale of public lands or streets or public places. Therefore, a public chowk, land, square, chogan or park for public use, cannot be sold by Municipality for augmenting revenue or commercial purposes. 28. In Smt. Kishna Devi vs. Vishnu Mitra – AIR 1982 Rajasthan 281, the same learned Single Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to injunction against defendant, who sought to make construction over the sanitary lane and it is a case of invasion on civic rights in general and right to use sanitary lane of the plaintiff-petitioner, in particular. The Court further held that grant of permission by the Urban Improvement Trust was no bar for a civil court to grant a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. 29. Learned counsel for the appellant defendant, Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate also relied upon a judgment of coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Chandra vs. State & ors. - 2009 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 194, wherein, dealing with a case under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raaj Act, 1994 for cancellation of Patta given by the Gram Panchayat for residential purpose, the Court held that the Gram Panchayat was a necessary party in a writ petition. - 2009 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 194, wherein, dealing with a case under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raaj Act, 1994 for cancellation of Patta given by the Gram Panchayat for residential purpose, the Court held that the Gram Panchayat was a necessary party in a writ petition. The said case is distinguishable from the facts of the present case, wherein, the Patta was issued by the Gram Panchayat at much prior point of time and subsequent Patta was issued by the Municipal Council on the land shown as passage in a camp known as ^iz’kklu ‘kgjksa dh vksj^ even though such allotment was earlier negatived by the concerned Assistant Collector in favour of the same defendant way back in 1983. 30. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court is satisfied that the substantial questions of law framed in these two second appeals also deserve to be answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the appellant defendants. They are hereby so answered accordingly and the defendants' appeals deserve to be dismissed with costs. 31. Accordingly, all the three appeals are hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- for each appeal to be paid by the appellant/defendants to the respondent/plaintiffs within three months from today.