A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10 -- Suit for specific performance of agreement -- Evidence of attorney -- One of the purchasers and plaintiff in his suit for specific performance throughout present in the transaction held the Power of Attorney from the other plaintiffs – He was examined as PW-1 in each of the suits whether in his capacity as plaintiff or as Power of Attorney from other plaintiffs -- It was not necessary for each of the plaintiffs in separate suits to appear and prove the transaction -- Trial Court had examined this aspect and had found favour with the plaintiffs – Adverse inference drawn by the High Court for the reason that the plaintiffs did not enter the witness box to prove the Agreement to Sell, was completely misplaced.

(Para 28)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 54 -- Suit for specific performance of agreement – Limitation -- Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990 did not mention any date for the performance, nor did owner refused at any point of time and soon after the death of owner in December 1992, the plaintiffs having come to know of the mutation proceedings by her legal heirs, they proceeded to file the suit, after giving notice in May 1995, which was well within a period of three years -- Second part of Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act would be applicable once there was no date fixed for performance in the Agreement to Sell.

(Para 27, 30)

C. Agreement to sell – Possession with original title deed – Effect of -- A purchaser who has paid the full consideration and received the original title deeds from the seller would have taken possession under normal circumstances -- Any possession taken by any other party thereafter would be unauthorised and illegal.

(Para 32)

D. Violation of Injunction order – Alienation of the property in violation of the injunction order -- Sale deed would be a void document.

(Para 33)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10, 16 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 54 – Suit for specific performance – Limitation -- Limitation prescribed by Article 54 sets in from the date when the petitioner received the reply refusing performance.

(Para 31)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10, 16(c) – Specific performance of agreement – Readiness and willingness – Purchaser paid a sum of Rs.11,30,00 as earnest money and paid Rs.13,00,000 on the same day by cheque and paid another Rs. 5,00,000 by Demand Draft -- If the petitioner was unwilling to perform the contract, he would not have paid nearly 75 percent of the sale consideration -- Petitioner with the payment of the additional sum above the earnest money, has proved his readiness and willingness to perform the contract -- Fit case for to exercise discretion to direct specific performance.

(Para 42)

C. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 – Lis panders -- Doctrine of lis pendens that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act encapsulates, bars the transfer of a suit property during the pendency of litigation -- The only exception to the principle is when it is transferred under the authority of the court and on terms imposed by it -- Where one of the parties to the suit transfers the suit property (or a part of it) to a third-party, the latter is bound by the result of the proceedings even if he did not have notice of the suit or proceeding.

(Para 47)

D. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 – Object of doctrine of lis pendens -- Purpose of lis pendens is to ensure that the process of the court is not subverted and rendered infructuous --  In the absence of the doctrine of lis pendens, a defendant could defeat the purpose of the suit by alienating the suit property.

(Para 49)

E. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 – Lis pendens – Review -- Pendency means -- Review proceedings were “instituted” within the period of limitation of thirty days –  Doctrine of lis pendens kicks in at the stage of “institution” and not at the stage when notice is issued by this Court -- Argument of the respondents that the doctrine of lis pendens does not apply because the petition for review was lying in the registry in a defective state cannot be accepted.

(Para 49)

Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 6, 7, 83 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 -- Waqf property – Jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunal -- Gair Mumkin Khangah and Takia -- Tribunal decided the issue of jurisdiction and held that the question of title would be decided by the Collector under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, however decided the other issued on merits – Tribunal would not be excluded from adjudicating the matter -- Tribunal having held that it did not have the jurisdiction to try and decide the suit, the findings on merits on other issues could not have been rendered by it -- Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law.

(Para 1, 3, 6-8)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27, Article 65 -- Suit for specific performance -- Agreement to sell -- Adverse possession – Plea of – Permissive possession -- Once the defendant himself pleaded that he is in possession under the agreement to sell and to retain possession relies on the part performance of contract to sell, he cannot plead adverse possession – Held, possession of a proposed vendee  under agreement to sell always is a permissive possession under the vendor till he pleads and proves that he gave up the permissive possession and re-entered into possession which was open and hostile to the knowledge of the true owner.

(Para 3, 28)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 8 -- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 9 -- Agreement to sell – Minor’s interest – Suit for specific performance -- Agreement to sell executed by defendant-respondent No.1/ one of heir of deceased -- No power of attorney executed by the other heirs in favour of defendant-respondent No.1 -- Power of attorney produced was executed after the execution of the agreement to sell -- Further, defendant-respondent Nos.6 and 7 were minors, without any permission from the Guardian Court their share could not in any case be sold, no such permission by the Guardian Court is forthcoming – Ld. Appellate Court held “said agreement being opposed to public policy and law could not be treated as a valid agreement to give rise to the cause of specific performance” – No ground to interfere, appeal dismissed.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Landlord -- Tenant -- Gair marusi tenant -- Merely because appellant is recorded as ‘Gair Maurusi’ in the revenue record, does not mean that he is a tenant over the suit property – There can be no tenancy unless there is a condition of payment of rent, though the rent may be payable in cash, kind or service etc. -- Held, it is inconceivable that there can be any tenancy without the condition of payment of rent, unless there is a contract to the contrary, absolving the tenant the liability to pay rent.

(Para 14, 15)

B. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Gair marusi tenant – Trespasser -- Adverse possession -- A party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take contrary stands to suit his convenience -- When in the earlier two litigations, it was ordered by the courts that appellant could be dispossessed in due course of law, he changed the stand in next litigations taking contrary plea that he had become owner of suit property by adverse possession -- In none of the earlier litigations decided earlier, he has been held to be tenant in the suit land, though his plea of possession has been upheld with further direction that he cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law – No evidence that tenancy was ever created and as such, his possession over the suit land is nothing less than that of a stranger / trespasser.

(Para 19)

C. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 9 --  Tenant of land – Eviction -- Jurisdiction of civil court --  When the person is inducted as a tenant on payment of rent and the rent is not paid --  Civil Court will not have jurisdiction and the landlord will have to seek his remedy before the Revenue Authorities to seek ejectment of such tenant or a tenant holding over, under the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 to be read with the provisions Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act.

(Para 22)

D. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 9 --  Gair marusi tenant – Suit for possession – Jurisdiction of civil court --  When the possession of person concerned on the suit land is without payment of rent, such as person is no more than a stranger or trespasser over the suit property -- In such a situation, his possession, howsoever long it may be, cannot be considered in the capacity of tenant in view of the definition of ‘landlord’, ‘tenant’ and ‘rent’ -- In this eventuality, it is only the Civil Court, which will have the jurisdiction to pass the decree of possession in favour of the landlord – Suit for possession decreed.

(Para 22, 23)

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Maharashtra Act No. XXXVII of 1966), Section 2, 126(1) -- Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991, Regulation 3(7), 33, 34 -- Constitution of India, Article 300A – Compensation for surrendering land and developing amenities -- Abandonment of claim -- Delay and laches – Writ petitioners constructed Development Plan Roads at their own cost and voluntarily surrendered the reserved lands to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation – Writ petitioners were granted Floor Space Index (FSI) and/or Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) in the form of Development Rights Certificates (DRC) equal to the gross area of the plots surrendered by them – Writ dismissed on delay and laches by High Court.

-- Held, once the compensation is determined in the form of FSI/TDR, the same is payable even in the absence of there being any representation or request being made -- In fact, a duty is cast on the State to pay compensation to the land losers as otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution -- Neither the doctrine of delay and laches nor the principle of abandonment of claim or waiver would apply in these cases.

(Para 2, 4.13, 18)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 121 -- Partition of land – Value and location of land -- It is well-settled that besides the possession of the co-sharers over the portions in the joint land holding, the value and location as well as the nature of such land have also to be taken into consideration at the time of affecting the partition so that all the co-sharers get the portions of the land without any prejudice to their entitlement as per their respective shares in the total land under partition.

(Para 8)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 121 -- Partition of land – Value and location of land -- Entire portion of the subject land abutting the road allocated to the appellants – Respondent No.5 has not been given even an inch of land out of the same which, by no stretch of imagination, can be termed to be justified and equitable at all.

(Para 8)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 44 -- Co-sharer – Sale of whole property by one of co-sharer – Permissibility of -- Said sale deed may be a valid document to the extent of the share of Vendor in the property and buyer/ appellant is free to take remedies to claim appropriate relief either by suit of partition or by suit of compensation and damages against his Vendor.

(Para 21)

A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 21 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 18, 19 -- Offer of possession made on 04.02.2014 -- ADA issued reminders to the appellant on 22.09.2014, 21.11.2014 and 17.01.2018 -- Additionally, ADA accepted the appellant's payment of Rs. 3,43,178/- on 20.06.2019 without any reservations -- NCDRC correctly applied Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which extend the limitation period where part payments or acknowledgments are made -- Consequently, the cause of action continued to exist, and the filing of the complaint in July 2020 is within the limitation period.

(Para 16)

B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 21 -- Pecuniary jurisdiction -- Respondent ADA challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction of the NCDRC, contending that the total payment made by the appellant amounted to Rs. 59,97,178/-, which was less than Rs. 1 crore -- Claim made by the appellant also included compensation for mental agony, harassment, and loss of income, which brought the total claim well above Rs. 1 crore -- In consumer disputes, the value of the claim is determined not just by the amount deposited but by the aggregate relief sought, which includes compensation and other claims -- NCDRC rightly held that it had the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and this Court affirms that finding.

(Para 18, 19)

C. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 21 -- Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (16 of 2016), Section 19(10) -- Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 (U.P. Act No. 16 of 2010), Section 4(5) -- Offer of possession -- Completion certificate -- Firefighting clearance certificate – Requirement of -- A developer must obtain these certificates before offering possession -- Possession offered without the requisite completion certificate is illegal, and a purchaser cannot be compelled to take possession in such circumstances -- ADA’s failure to provide the required certificates justifies the appellant’s refusal to take possession --  Entire amount deposited by the appellant ordered to be refunded with interest 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of refund, the ADA is directed to pay an additional amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs only) to the appellant.

(Para 20-23)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22A(B), 22C – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 6 -- Lease of the Gram Panchayat land – Public Utility Service – Maintainability of proceedings before Permanent Lok Adalat -- Lease of the Gram Panchayat land to any bidder is not a part of the Public Utility Services defined under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 -- Proceedings at the first instance could not have been maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

(Para 5, 6)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14 – Limited estate of lady – Property of female Hindu to be her absolute property -- Defendant no.1 was married in the year 1959-60, much after coming into force the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on 17.06.1956 -- As such, her limited estate enlarges into absolute estate and she becomes full owner on the date of coming into force the Hindu Succession Act.

(Para 41)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9, Section 151 – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Suit for declaration -- No allegation in the plaint that defendants had encroached the suit land -- Suit itself was for declaration simplicitor that plaintiff had become owner of some portion of suit land by adverse possession & remaining portion of suit land by purchase -- It was for the plaintiff to prove his case by leading cogent evidence -- Plaintiff cannot be permitted to involve the Court in an exercise to hunt for evidence – Application dismissed.

(Para 1, 5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 118, 121 -- Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (1 of 1913), Section 3(1) (2) and (3), 8, 15, 16 -- Pre-emption decree – Partition of land – Naksha bey – Naksha jeem -- Severance of co-sharer status -- Prior to the passing of the judgment and decree by the trial Court not only the 'naksha bey' had been sanctioned but even the 'naksha jeem' had been prepared and thus, on the date of the judgment and decree, there was severance of the relationship of co-sharers between the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 and thus, the plaintiffs had no right of pre-emption on the date of the passing of the judgment by the trial Court.

(Para 18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). Section 145, 146 – Issue of possession – Decree of civil court – Effect of -- Proceedings u/s 145/146 Cr.P.C. pertain to the factum of possession of a party and not the right to possess which is to be determined by the Civil Court -- Once the factum of possession and right to possess both have been adjudicated upon by the appropriate Civil Court, the question of initiation of proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. does not arise.

(Para 12, 13)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Schedule - Article 54 -- Specific performance of contract – Limitation -- In the agreement dated 17.12.1989, it is specifically mentioned that the sale deed would be executed within one month from the date of the said agreement -- One month would expire on 16.01.1990, limitation period would be three years from the said date, which would expire on 16.01.1993 – Suit filed  in September, 1993 -- Suit liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone – Advance of Rs. 80,000/- ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs along with 12% simple interest.

(Para 9-12)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 33, 35 -- Suit for specific performance – Insufficient stamp on agreement – Penalty of 10 times – Trial court imposed 10 times penalty -- Imposition of penalty to the extent of ten times, is not mandatory and discretion lies with the authority -- Parties entered into agreement to sell, without having knowledge of the amendment carried out by the State of Punjab -- Petitioner-plaintiff shall be liable to pay the deficient stamp duty, along with equivalent amount of penalty, within a period of 30 days. Amit Kumar’s case 2022(3) Law Herald 2472 relied – Revision allowed.

(Para 1, 13-17)

Haryana Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 23 -- Possession of new holding -- Petitioners continued in possession of the old khasra numbers and the effect to the consolidation proceedings has not been given, though revenue record may have been corrected -- Writ petition disposed to give effect to the consolidation proceedings qua the petitioners by way of handing over the physical possession of the land to which they are entitled.

(Para 3, 4)

Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (31 of 1973), Section 5 – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 20, 21 -- Eviction of unauthorised person – Right under consolidation – Ground of -- Final authority came to the conclusion that petitioner had encroached upon the land in dispute, auction whereof had taken place on 10.05.1993 -- Question of entitlement, as such, could not be raised and which is now contended on the strength of consolidation proceedings.

(Para 5)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11D – Shamilat deh – Ownership dispute – Framing of issues -- Summary procedure – Sustainability of -- Statutory authorities in a most summary manner declined the espoused declaratory decree – No issue struck on the contentious pleadings -- It was imperative for the authorities concerned, to formulate issues for the relevant evidence adducing onus becoming cast upon the litigants concerned -- Petition allowed, impugned order set aside, matter remanded back to Collector.

(Para 8-10)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction – Interference in appeal – Permissibility of -- Relief of injunction is an equitable and discretionary relief, based on well-established principles of prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience -- At the same time, once discretion is exercised by the trial judge of the first instance, the interference by the Appellate Court is not justified, unless the exercise is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, perverse or ignoring the settled principles of law.

(Para 12)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 20A -- Temporary injunction – Stalling Infrastructure project – Permissibility of – A person, who seeks equity must do equity -- Defendant No.2 after paying huge consideration has purchased the suit land from the two brothers i.e. plaintiff & defendant and their sister -- Ultimately after trial, if it is found that plaintiff was entitled to the entire suit land, he would be entitled to the proportionate sale consideration, but for that reason, the infrastructure project worth Rs.100 crore cannot be stalled -- No prohibitory injunction can be granted involving such a project as per Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act – Application for temporary injunction dismissed.

(Para 17-19)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887) , Section 44 – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 -- Jamabandi entries – Possession – Presumption -- Possession of plaintiffs-respondent Nos.4 to 7 over the property duly established on record through Jamabandi entries relating to the year 1971-72 till 2006-07 -- Though the land in question is recorded to be owned by the appellant-Gram Panchayat, however, it is in long settled physical possession of the plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 4 to 7, who are cultivating the same -- In terms of Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, presumption of truth is attached to the entries of possession made in the revenue record in the shape of Jamabandies -- No fault could be found with the reasoning, whereby the appellant-Gram Panchayat was restrained from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 4 to 7, except in due course of law.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 37 -- Suit for permanent injunction – Co-sharer in possession -- Exclusive possession of the defendants since the time of their forefathers, is made out on the suit land -- Evidence does not establish that plaintiff had planted the trees in question on the suit land and nurtured them -- Plaintiff cannot be said to be clothed with the legal right to restrain the defendants from using or cutting the trees, standing on their land --  It is well established principle of law that where a co sharer who is in possession of the separate parcels of the property is entitled to the enjoyment of its possession, and it is not open to anyone to disturb the possession – Suit dismissed.

(Para 17)

B. Co-sharer in possession – Remedy to other co-sharer -- Remedy of a co-sharer not in possession of the joint property is by way of filing a suit for possession or actual possession but not for ejectment.

(Para 17)

C. Concealment of facts – Effect of -- Plaintiffs non-suited for concealing the earlier litigation -- Law is settled that who seeks equity, must do equity -- A litigant who conceals material facts from the Court is not entitled for relief.

(Para 18)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 -- Agreement to sell – Registration of – Requirement of – Suit for specific performance -- First Appellate Court held that for the purpose of filing the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell, the registration of the agreement to sell is not necessary – No ground to interfere is made out – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 3-9)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 4 – Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887), Section 25 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 106 -- Termination of lease – Suit for eviction, and recovery of rent and damages for use and occupation -- Ex-parte proceedings -- In ex-parte proceedings the Court is required to test the case of the plaintiff and not merely believe whatever has been stated in the plaint.

-- Impugned order records that the Defendants/Revisionists had filed written statement however, at the stage of evidence did not file any evidence in support of his written statement or in rebuttal of the plaint nor examined the plaintiff witnesses.

-- Defendants/ Revisionists also did not appear at the time of arguments and the case in such circumstances proceeded ex-parte against the Defendants/ Revisionists.

– Plaintiff/ Respondent filed the certified copy of the registered Lease Agreement executed between the parties.

-- Notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, Postal receipts showing service of the Notice upon the Defendants/ Revisionists, photocopies of the cheques along with the Bank return memos showing insufficient funds in the Bank account of the Defendants/ Revisionists.

Evidence of the Plaintiff/ Respondent stood unrebutted -- Taking note of the above in the absence of any contest from the Defendants/ Revisionists learned Judge Small Causes Court proceeded to decree the suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent -- No illegality in the procedure adopted by the learned Judge Small Causes Court in decreeing the Suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent -- Findings recorded by the learned JSCC calls for no interference.

(Para 25-28, 39-41)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 63(2)(3), 65, 74 -- Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 57 -- Certified copy of registered lease deed – Admissibility in evidence –  Certified copy of the Lease Agreement will fall under the category of secondary evidence – Certified copy of the Lease Agreement is a Public Document, as contemplated u/s 74 and in terms of the 3rd Proviso to Section 65(e) or 65(f) the certified copy is admissible in evidence -- Sub Section 5 of Section 57 of the Registration Act provides that certified copy given u/s 57 of the Registration Act shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of its original document -- Rightly relied while decreeing the Suit.

(Para 29-34)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Specific performance of contract -- Relief of specific performance of contract is a discretionary relief -- As such, the Courts while exercising power to grant specific performance of contract, need to be extra careful and cautious in dealing with the pleadings and the evidence in particular led by the plaintiffs -- The plaintiffs have to stand on their own legs to establish that they have made out case for grant of relief of specific performance of contract -- The Act, 1963 provides certain checks and balances which must be fulfilled and established by the plaintiffs before they can become entitled for such a relief -- The pleadings in a suit for specific performance have to be very direct, specific and accurate -- A suit for specific performance based on bald and vague pleadings must necessarily be rejected -- Section 16(C) of the 1963 Act requires readiness and willingness to be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract -- The said provision has been widely interpreted and held to be mandatory.

(Para 22(i))

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6, 8 -- Coparcenary property -- Mutation was sanctioned in accordance with Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 -- The property can no longer be claimed to be a coparcenary.

(Para 4.5)

B. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 – Drafting of Will -- Attestation of Will – Presence of witnesses – Knowledge of contents – Requirement of -- Will is required to be executed in the presence of witnesses or they should receive acknowledgment from the testator that he has signed it.

-- Drafting of the Will and the typing of the Will in the presence of witnesses is not necessary.

-- Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has either seen the testator’s sign or affixed his mark to the Will or has received acknowledgment from the testator that he has signed the Will.

-- Both the witnesses are not required to be simultaneously present at one place.

-- Witnesses are not required to know the contents of the Will -- They are required to attest the signatures of the testator.

(Para 4.17)

C. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6, 8 -- Coparcenary property – The property not come through male lineal descendants -- In between, there was a civil court decree, transfer deed of some property – The Property was inherited u/s 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not as a coparcenary property – The property received from different sources including ownership by way of adverse possession as well as receipt of the property from aunt – Held, the property is not coparcenary.

(Para 4.21, 4.22)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- First Appeal – Stay of decree – Right of -- Suit for specific performance decreed – Appeal was filed, but no order relating to the stay was granted and after about a period of 11 months, the application was dismissed -- The Court, ought to take into consideration that it is the statutory right exercised by the petitioner-defendant, by filing appeal -- Creation of third party rights, may lead to multiplicity of litigation – Revision allowed, impugned order set aside -- Operation of the judgment and decree stayed, till the decision of First Appeal.

(Para 7-12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Suit for specific performance – Impleadment as defendant -- Rights or interest of petitioners to the extent of their shares in suit land, are neither the subject matter of suit nor of the agreement to sell – Petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit --  Petitioner cannot claim to be impleaded as party in the suit, where no relief is claimed against them – Law is settled that any decree against a stranger is nullity, therefore, any decree passed in the suit will have no effect on the rights of the petitioners.

(Para 7, 12)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction -- Before granting injunction, the court is required to apply three well known tests namely;

a) prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs

b) balance of convenience

c) irreparable loss and injury which the party may suffer if the injunction is not granted.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction – Joint owner -- Property is situated in an area which is being used for running a small scale industry -- No dispute that previously the defendants were utilising the area by constructing a shed with iron sheets -- Defendants have installed their machinery to carry out work of laundry and steam press -- Even if the defendants are permitted to put new iron or cemented sheets over the pillars, there will be no permanent change in the nature of the property -- Defendants stated that if suit is decreed and suit property falls in the share of the plaintiffs, they will not claim any compensation for the construction.

-- Decision of the suit is likely to take a long time and if the parties are not permitted to use the property, it will lead to wastage of resources.

-- If the plaintiffs succeed they will get the property with construction.

-- Parties are yet to lead evidence.

Held, Courts below have erred in obstructing the defendants from completing the renovation/ re-construction of the shed by granting injunction.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 9 -- Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 51 – Civil suit for possession of agricultural land -- Ejectment of tenant -- Denying title of landlord – Effect of – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- If defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs in the written statement by taking a specific plea to the effect, that will be sufficient to hold that they had denounced the title of the plaintiff -- Civil Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for possession.

(Para 10)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 9 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 51 – Tenancy of agricultural land – Adverse possession – Plea of -- Effect of – Finding beyond pleadings – Permissibility of -- At no point of time, defendants ever claimed to be tenants on the suit land -- Their consistent stand taken in the written statement is that they are in possession of the suit land and had perfected their title by way of adverse possession -- Their plea of adverse possession has not been found as correct -- The First Appellate Court on its own, made out a new case for the defendants by holding them to be tenants on the suit land -- The First Appellate Court could not travel beyond the pleadings of the parties -- Even the evidence, led beyond the pleadings of the parties, could not be appreciated in that direction -- Suit decreed.

(Para 11, 13)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17, 53A – Agreement to sell -- Transfer by way of affidavit with possession – Nature of -- Affidavit does not amount to plaintiff having relinquished his title -- Such document was required to be mandatorily registered u/s 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 -- However, such affidavit can be treated as agreement to sell with delivery of possession – Section 53-A of the Act, protects the possession of the proposed purchaser -- The ingredients of Section 53-A of the Act stands fulfilled because the total payment has been made and continuation of the defendant’s possession over the suit property is acknowledged -- Plaintiff infact relinquished his share -- Though, technically a relinquishment or a registered sale deed should have been executed in favour of the defendant, however, Section 53-A of the Act, which is based upon the rule of estoppel comes to the appellant’s rescue – Plaintiff held not entitled to the decree of possession of the suit property.

(Para 9, 10)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 41 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 6 – Agreement to sell by brother/ attorney after death of Owner -- Plaintiffs asserted in the plaint, specifically that brother/ attorney of owner received payments from various vendees -- While filing the written statement there is no specific denial to the assertion -- In the absence of specific denial, the pleadings are deemed to have been admitted -- Moreover, two daughters of Owner while appearing in evidence, have not disputed the payment – Attorney died, children of attorney have not stepped into the witness box -- It will not be appropriate to hold that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the payment of the entire sale consideration.

-- Colony has already been carved out on the disputed property.

-- If specific performance of the agreement to sell is granted chances are that the plaintiffs would complete the colony by providing all the requisite facilities to the residents/ plot buyers.

-- Heirs of owner/ principal are settled in England and for the last 25 years, they have never bothered to take care of their property after their father passed away in the year 1991, hence, no equity lies in their favour.

-- From the testimony of both the daughters of owner, it is evident that they always treated agreement to sell to be the complete sale of the suit property.

Plaintiffs are not guilty of committing any default which may disentitle them the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell as they being third parties unaware of the death of principal were bonafide purchasers -- Relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell granted.

(Para 1.5, 6-8.1)

Will – Suspicious circumstances -- Testator of the Will died issueless on 23.07.1977 and his wife had predeceased him -- Will did not see the light of the day till the filing of the suit for almost 8 years -- No explanation is forthcoming for the plaintiff-respondent to have kept quiet for so long and not getting the mutation entered in his favour on the basis of the Will – Ld. Appellate Court held that the Will in favour of the plaintiff-respondent was duly proved – Held, Judgement and decree passed by the First Appellate Court cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside.

(Para 4, 5, 8-13)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 – Co-parcenery property – No son – Right to alienate -- Suit for declaration challenging the consent decree dated 22.07.1981 -- In the absence of any fraud having being played, the power to alienate the suit property despite being ancestral property could not be challenged as the property in his hand would be treated as separate property in the absence of a son.

(Para 1, 10-14)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 10 – Local Commissioner’s report – Evidential value -- Commissioners’ reports are non-adjudicatory in nature and the Court adjudicate upon the rights of the parties -- It is only an opinion or noting -- Such a report does not automatically form part of the court’s opinion, as the Court has the power to confirm, vary or set aside the report.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 10 – Possession over property – Local Commissioner’s report -- Except the report of the Local commissioner, the appellant-plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence to show his possession over the suit property and therefore, the Courts below have rightly drawn an adverse inference against the appellant/ plaintiff.

(Para 10)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 12 – Suit of specific performance – Limitation – Long delay – Plaintiff not appeared for cross-examination -- Effect of -- Plaintiff/appellant failed to enter into the witness box and subject himself to cross-examination, he has not been able to prove the prerequisites of Section 12 of the Act,1963 -- Suit was filed on the last date of limitation calculated on the basis of the last extended time -- Plaintiff entered into an agreement with only one of the co-owners -- Suit dismissed.

(Para 13-18)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 62 – Usufructuary mortgage -- Redemption of Mortgage -- Suit for declaration that plaintiff had become owner of the suit land by efflux of time as mortgage deed was dated 23.12.1959 for a consideration of Rs.500/- and since the land has not been redeemed, hence, the plaintiff had become owner of the suit land by efflux of time – Held, suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable -- It is trite that once a mortgage always a mortgage and there would be no period for redemption for the same – Suit dismissed.

(Para 2, 9, 10)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Appointment of Local Commissioner – Dismissal of application -- Maintainability of revision -- It is trite that an order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and hence would not be a revisable order.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Demarcation of possession – Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-petitioner -- That being so, it is for the plaintiff-petitioner to prove his case and he cannot take aid of the Court agency for creating evidence for him.

(Para 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1909), Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction against co-owner – Exclusive possession -- From the revenue record, it transpires that parties are in separate possession of the suit land – Held, when exclusive possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land is evident from the revenue records, then the defendants have been rightly restrained from interfering into their exclusive possession over the suit land.

(Para 7)

Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Article 1, Schedule 1 -- Ad-valorem court fee – Transfer of property in favour of family members by registered instruments -- Suit for cancellation of document -- Trial court directed the plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court fee – Held, suit will be governed by Article-I, Schedule-I of the 1870 Act, which provides for payment of ad valorem court fee on the value of the subject matter in dispute -- There is no error in the impugned orders of the trial Court -- Revision dismissed.

(Para 3, 11, 12)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 41(h) -- Suit for mandatory injunction for possession and registration of lease agreement -- Plaintiff-appellant had ample opportunity to file a suit for specific performance but failed to do so – Suit as well as First Appeal dismissed in view of bar of Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act -- A duty is cast on a plaintiff to show and satisfy the Court that the suit brought by him is property constituted and maintainable in law – No illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 3, 8-10)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 – General Power of Attorney/ GPA – Sale – Consent decree – Legality of -- Words ‘bay’ i.e. to sell is specifically mentioned in the GPA, which means attorney was authorized to sell, but by suffering the decree he did not sell the land and rather, he transferred the suit land in favour of his sons by admitting some purported family settlement -- Said decree did not amount to sale.

(Para 11, 12)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 37 -- Suit for permanent injunction -- Using the suit property for storing cow dung etc. and lien was used for preparing lime mortar for building material -- No date mentioned when this property was being used for preparing lime mortar -- Mere storing cow dung and wooden sticks does not prove a case in favour of the plaintiff -- Since the plaintiff himself has failed to prove his possession over the suit property, he is not entitled for injunction.

(Para 13)

Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 11 -- Sale deed by minor – Challenge to – In school record plaintiff’s name is P.K -- In the Jamabandi/ revenue record, plaintiff’s name is P.K. daughter of K – In both the sale deeds assailed by the plaintiff her name is mentioned as P.K. and she claimed herself to be major -- Birth certificate (Ex.P1/A), on which the plaintiff placed reliance, pertains to R.K -- Plaintiff failed to produce any document to reveal that apart from P.K., she was ever known by the name of R.K. -- Mother and two brothers of plaintiff not examined – Held, it cannot be stated that birth certificate of R.K. pertains to the plaintiff – Suit dismissed.

(Para 2, 10-13)

A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 -- Doctrine of lis pendens -- Object underlying the doctrine of lis pendens is for maintaining status quo that cannot be affected by an act of any party in a pending litigation -- The objective is also to prevent multiple proceedings by parties in different forums -- The principle is based on equity and good conscience.

(Para 16)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 1, 52 -- Doctrine of lis pendens – Applicability of -- By virtue of Section 1 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the provisions of the said Act are not applicable in the States of Punjab, Delhi or Bombay; subject, of course to certain exceptions -- In the case of Kanshi Ram v. Kesho Ram, AIR 1961 P&H 299 the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that since the explanation to Section 52 is based on equity and good conscience this principle can be applicable -- Even if Section 52 of T.P Act is not applicable in its strict sense then too the principles of lis pendens, which are based on justice, equity and good conscience, would certainly be applicable.

(Para 17)

C. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 -- Doctrine of lis pendens – Pendency of a suit shall be deemed to have commenced from the date on which the plaintiff presents the suit -- Such pendency would extend till a final decree is passed and such decree is realised.

(Para 18)

D. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 -- Doctrine of lis pendens – Suit for permanent injunction was filed prior to the execution of release deed -- Since the release deed is executed after the suit for temporary injunction was filed by the appellant, the alienation made would be covered by the doctrine of lis pendens.

(Para 19)

E. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 41, 52 -- Doctrine of lis pendens – Bonafide purchaser -- Once it has been held that the transactions executed by the respondents are illegal due to the doctrine of lis pendens the defence of the respondents 1-2 that they are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration and thus, entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Act of 1882 is liable to be rejected.

(Para 21)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 37 -- Suit for permanent injunction -- Admission – Photocopy of sale  deed – Evidential value -- Once the defendants had categorically admitted that plaintiff was the owner of the land on which she had raised the construction of a building, there was no question to doubt the title of the plaintiff in this regard simply for the reason that only the copy of the sale deed was produced and not the original sale deed.

(Para 13)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 39 Rule 1, 2 & 3 – Temporary injunction – Notice to opposite party – Requirement of -- It is mandatory for the Court to direct notice of the application filed under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 to be given to the opposite party except where it appears to the Court that object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay -- Notice mandated under Rule 3 cannot be a mere formality -- It has to be reasonable notice and the opposite party is entitled to make itself response within reasonable period.

(Para 26)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 39 Rule 1, 2 & 3 – Interim mandatory injunction – Installation of electric connection as interim relief -- Ld. trial Court hastened to pass an interim order in mandatory form which in fact is peri-materia to the prayer as made in the main suit -- Impugned order does not record any reason as to what urgency was seen by the learned trial Court in passing the impugned order on the same day on which the application was filed -- Thus, there is serious non-compliance of Rule 3, Order 39 of the CPC and the manner in which learned trial Court has conducted itself definitely is not confirming to the basis principles of judicial procedure and propriety -- Impugned order set aside with direction to the parties to maintain status quo ante as on the date of passing of the impugned order with respect to the installation of electricity connection.

(Para 10, 26, 27)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Suit for specific performance – Interim relief -- Status quo -- Plaintiff seeking specific performance of contract against defendant No.1 -- Defendant No.1 had sold parts of suit land to defendants No.2 and 3/ during pendency of the suit proceedings -- Defendant No.1 had admitted the execution of the agreement in favour of plaintiff, but his case was that sale deed can be executed only after the partition of the suit land -- Balance of convenience and prima facie case existed in plaintiff’s favour -- To preserve the suit property and to avoid multiplicity of litigations, the order for maintaining status quo qua possession, alienation or creating further third-party interest in the suit land till the disposal of the suit was just and proper.

(Para 4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 21, 22 – Amendment to add the plea of assessment of un-liquidated damages and to sue respondents/ defendants in individual capacity on attaining majority -- Plaintiff cannot be deprived of his right to incorporate the pleas, which are available to him under the law – Court should allow the parties to bring their plea on record, so that matter in controversy can be finally, completely and effectively decided -- Causing the delay, in raising the pleas at belated stage of the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff needs to be burdened with costs – Amendment in plaint allowed with cost of Rs. 30,000/-.

(Para 3, 14, 15)