Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 528 (MP)

Kamal Singh Baghel v. Ramayan @ Ramaiya Teli

2022-04-01

VISHAL MISHRA

body2022
ORDER 1. Challenge being made to the order dated 11.3.2022 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge, Satna whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents/defendants under Order 43 Rule 1 (R) of C.P.C. against the order passed by the learned trial Court granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff is being set aside. 2. It is submitted that the plaintiffs/petitioners have filed a civil suit for declaration of title, return or possession and for permanent injunction with respect to multiple land situated in Mouja Gurdang and Mauja Bela. The same is pending consideration. Along with the plaint an application for temporary injunction has been filed making a prayer for restraining the parties to create a third party interest and further the defendants be directed not to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and not to change the form of suit properties or to alter the suit properties in any manner. The reply to the aforesaid applications was filed by the defendants and denied the averments. The aforesaid application was considered by the learned trial Court and was disposed of vide its order dated 30.10.2021 and directing the parties not to create a third party interest during the pendency of the case and the defendants No.3, 4, 9 to 35 and 37 to 56 were restrained from transferring the suit property mentioned in Annexure-A and the defendants No. 1, 2, 5, and 57 to 65 were restrained from transferring the suit properties, mentioned in Annexure B, by way of sale, gift, will or partition. 3. The aforesaid order was put to challenge by filing an appeal before the Appellate Court by one of the defendants which was registered as M.C.A.No.68/2012. The learned Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court on the ground that in terms of section 52 of the Transfer Property Act, if a property is being transferred or a third party interest is being created in the matter, during the pendency of the civil suit then the person who is transferring the property is required to give an information to the person who is purchasing the property during the pendency of the civil suit and has also been permitted for creating a third party interest in the matter. Thus in such circumstances, the order passed by the learned trial Court not to create any third party interest was in the interest of proper adjudication of the lis because the same will avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, it is prayed that the order passed by the learned trial Court be restored and the parties may be directed not to create any third party interest till the pendency of the civil suit. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. From the perusal of the record, it is seen that at the time of consideration of application for grant of injunction, the learned trial Court has categorically observed as under :- "45. Such prevailing controversy regarding the validity of the concerned mutation and execution ofsell deed dated 29.7.1968 and 29.4.1971 cannot be resolved at this stage of the suit. Such determination is only possible after the taking of the evidence from the both parties. In the meanwhile, this Court is of the view that the apparent interest of the plaintiffs/applicants needs to be protected during the pendency of the suit. This is all more necessary in the instant case because since the institution of the suit a part of the suit properties has already been sold to the different persons giving rise to an added apprehension of further re-sale and consequential multiplicity of the proceeding. That being so, there appears to be a prima facie case of the plaintiff to restrain defendants from transferring the suit properties, by way ofsale, gift, will or partition etc." 6. On appeal being made by one of the defendants before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court has set aside the order passed by the trial Court and has virtually permitted for transfer of the property and to create third party interest pointing out the fact that the matter will be governed in the theory of lis pendence as in pursuance to section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the person who is selling of the property is required to give information to the purchaser regarding pendency of the civil suit but the aforesaid aspect will increase complication in the matter and will also increase multiplicity of the proceedings. There are already multiple proceedings pending in the matter which has been pointed out by the plaintiffs in the plaint along with an application for grant of injunction. There are already multiple proceedings pending in the matter which has been pointed out by the plaintiffs in the plaint along with an application for grant of injunction. In such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Court and restore the order passed by the learned trial Court directing the parties not to create any third party interest in the matter till the pendency of the civil suit. The aforesaid order is being passed considering the fact that there are already so many parties in the civil suit and already multiple orders have been passed and the properties have been transferred to one another by various sale deeds. Just to avoid further multiplicity of proceedings and making the matter more complex, the parties are directed not to create any third party interest and the order passed by the learned trial Court is restored. The aforesaid will not create any prejudice in favour of the defendants in the matter. In view of the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.