You are on page 1of 65

Latest Judgments

Disclaimer: This text of the judgment/order is made available merely for information to our
subscribers till it is reported in Supreme Court Cases(TM). The text is yet to be processed, verified
and authenticated on the basis of the certified copy. The Guide Notes provided in bold are pre-
publication headnotes which are merely indicative of the subject matter dealt with by the Court.
Hence the editors, publishers and/or printers shall not be liable for any action taken or omitted to
be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this text or Guide Notes.

Go Back to List of Latest Judgments

(ArunMishraandAmitavaRoy,JJ.)

T.Ravi&Anr.____________________________________Appellant(s)

v.

B.ChinnaNarasimha&Ors.etc.____________________Respondent(s)

CivilAppealNos.47314732of2010,decidedonMarch21,2017

With

[CivilAppealNos.4733of2010,473435of2010,4736of2010,483738of2010,653637of
2010,427677of2011,CivilAppealNo.431920of2017(@SLP(C)Nos.2386423865of
2011),CivilAppealNos.119697of2012andCivilAppealNos.710506of2010]

TheJudgementoftheCourtwasdeliveredby

ArunMishra,J.:
1.LeavegrantedinS.L.P.(C)Nos.2386423865of2011.

2.Intheappeals,thefinaldecreewhichhasbeendrawnupinapartitionsuitwithrespecttoitem
No.6ofScheduleBpertainingtolandadmeasuring68acres10guntascomprisedinsurvey
Nos.63,68,69and70situatedatvillageMadhapur,DistrictRangaReddy,Hyderabadisin
question.

3.ThepropertywasmatrukapropertyofLateMohd.NawabJungwhopassedawayon
25.4.1935.CivilSuitNo.82/1935wasinstitutedbyMohd.HashimAliKhan,sonofMohd.
Nawab,inDarulQazaCityCourt,Hyderabad,forpartitionofmatrukapropertiesofLateNawab
comprisedinSchedulesA,BandC.Thesuitwascontested,interalia,bydefendantNo.1.
DarulQazaCourtwasabolishedintheyear1951.Onabolitionoforiginaljurisdictionofthe
HighCourt,thecasewasassignedtotheCityCivilCourt.Itappearsthatlateronasthefilewas
notreceivedbytheCityCivilCourtfromtheCustodian,itpassedorderdated8.1.1955tothe
effectthatthefileofthecasewasnotyetreceived,theplaintiffwasalsoabsent,assuchthecase
beclosedforthetimebeingandberevivedonlyonreceiptofthefileandonanapplicationtobe
filedbytheplaintiff.Thecitycivilcourtunderstoodtheordertobeofdismissalofsuitin
default.Theplaintiffmovedanapplicationforrevivalofthesuit.Thecitycivilcourtdirectedthe
plaintiffvideorderdated1.12.1955todepositRs.50towardscostsandifthecostswerenotpaid
by15.12.1955,thesuitshallstanddismissed.Theplaintiffcouldnotpaythecostwithinthe
stipulatedtimeandprayedforextensionoftimewhichwasnotextended.Theorderwas
questionedbytheplaintiffintheHighCourtbywayoffilinganappeal.TheHighCourtdecided
theappealvideorderdated23.1.1962andheldthatvideorderdated8.1.1955,thesuitwasnot
dismissedfordefault.Itwasanorderadjourningthesuitwithadirectionthatitmayberevived
onlyonreceiptofthefilefromtheCustodian,therefore,therewasnonecessityfortheplaintiff
tofileanapplicationunderOrder9Rule9CPCforrestoration.Thusthetrialcourthadno
jurisdictiontodirecttheplaintiffvideorderdated1.12.1955topaythecostofRs.50tothe
defendantsonorbefore15.12.1955asaconditionprecedent.Theappealwasallowedandthe
orderdated1.12.1955wassetaside.TheorderpassedbytheHighCourtattainedfinality.
Thereafter,thesuitwasrenumberedasCivilSuitNo.42/1962inthecitycivilcourt.HamidAli
Khan,defendantNo.1soldItemNo.6ofScheduleBpropertyinarea68acres10guntason
23.11.1959toBalaMallaiahvideregisteredsaledeed.Hesoldtheshareinheritedbyotherco
heirsalsotoBalaMallaiah.Itwasfoundinthepreliminarydecreeforpartitiondated24.11.1970
thatdefendantNo.1,HamidAliKhan,washavingonly14/104thshareinmatrukaproperties.
Theplaintiff,anddefendantNos.2,3and12werealsohaving14/104thshareeach.Defendant
Nos.4to6,daughtersofNawabhad7/104thshareinmatrukaproperties.NurunnisaBegum,
widowofLateNawab,defendantNo.7wasentitledto13/104thshareinmatrukaproperties.
4.Aggrievedbythepreliminarydecreeforpartitiondeterminingthesharestotheaforesaid
extent,theplaintiffandlegalheirsofdefendantNo.1i.e.defendantNos.23to25anddefendant
No.27preferredappealintheyear1972beforetheHighCourt.Crossobjectionswerealso
preferredbydefendantNo.6ShareefunnisaBegum.TheHighCourtdismissedtheappealsand
allowedthecrossobjectionsofdefendantNo.6withrespecttoitemNo.4ofScheduleA
property.TheplaintiffquestionedthedecisionbywayoffilingLPANo.199/1977andthesame
wasdismissedvideorderdated12.11.1976,thedecisionwithrespecttopreliminarydecreehas
attainedfinality.

5.DefendantNo.25daughterofdefendantNo.1filedIANo.854/1984forpassingafinal
decreeintermsofthepreliminarydecreepassedinthepartitionsuit.Duringthependencyofthe
finaldecreeproceedings,anAdvocateCommissionerwasappointedtodividethesuitschedule
landbymetesandboundsasperthepreliminarydecreepassedon24.11.1970forwhichan
application(IANo.31/1989)wasfiledon16.1.1989.HesubmittedareportinDecember,1993
inrespectofitemNo.6ofScheduleBofpreliminarydecreedated24.11.1970.TheAdvocate
Commissionerdividedthesuitschedulepropertyon28.11.1993.Healsonoticedthatthird
partieswereinpossessionofthelandandhehadalsoseenasignboardofSuryaEnclave
Developers.Thesaletransactiontookplaceduringthependencyofthepreliminarydecree
proceedingson23.11.1959.TheLRs.ofBalaMallaiahwereentitledtotheshareofHamidAli
Khan,defendantNo.1.On6.10.1997,pendingfinaldecreeproceedings,plaintiffanddefendant
Nos.4and14to17i.e.LRs.ofdefendantNo.5assignedtheirinterestinitemNo.6ofplaintB
schedulepropertiesinfavourofD.A.P.ContainersPvt.Ltd.Theassigneeswerebroughton
recordasdefendantNos.99to112inthefinaldecreeproceedingsvideorderdated22.4.1999
passedbytheSeniorCivilJudge,CityCivilCourt,Hyderabad.

6.On16.7.2001,L.Rs.ofBalaMallaiahfiledIANo.978/2001andsoughtimpleadmentto
contestthematterinrespectofitemNo.6ofplaintBScheduleproperties.Videorderdated
14.10.2003,LRs.ofBalaMallaiahwereimpleaded.On2.4.2004,subsequentpurchasersofthe
disputedpropertyfiledanapplication(IANo.544/2004)underOrderVIIRule11CPCfor
rejectionofthefinaldecreeproceedings.Itwasresistedbyappellantsandrejectedbythecourt
videorderdated5.7.2005andultimatelythefinaldecreecametobepassedon7.7.2005interms
ofthepreliminarydecreedated24.11.1970.InthefinaldecreeproceedingsinitiatedbyIANo.
854/1984,shareofeachheirwasrecognizedinthedisputedpropertybeingItemNo.6of
ScheduleBplaint.TherightsofHamidAli,vendorofBalaMallaiahandsubsequent
purchaser'ssharewasrecognizedtotheextentof14/104thshare.Rightsofthe
assignees/appellantswerealsorecognizedintermsoftheassignmentdeedandseparate
possessionwasgiventothem.ThefinaldecreewasquestionedinAppealNos.385and386of
2006whichwerefiledbyLRs.ofBalaMallaiahandpurchasersfromthemwithrespecttoitem
No.6ofplaintBscheduleproperty.Theappealsweredismissedon27.4.2007.Aggrieved
thereby,SecondAppealNo.410/2008waspreferred.Appealhadbeenallowedbytheimpugned
judgmentanddecreedated15.4.2010.

7.Beforethefinaldecreecouldbepassedinthecase,civilsuitbeingOSNo.294/1993wasfiled
forperpetualinjunctionbyL.Rs.ofBalaMallaiahagainstHashimAliKhanandothersonthe
basisofsaledeeddated23.11.1959.ThesuitwasdismissedbyJuniorCivilJudge,Hyderabad
West&Southvidejudgmentanddecreedated8.6.1998.Itwasheldthattheplaintiffswerenot
entitledtoclaimadversepossessionoverthesuitschedulepropertyandthattheirpurchaseand
possessionwassubjecttotheresultofthepartitionsuit,O.S.No.42/1962.Itwasalsoheldthat
thepossessionoftheplaintiffcouldnotbesaidtoberightfulpossessionandtheycouldclaim
onlytotheextentoftheirvendor'sshareandnotovertheentireproperty,andthus,theywerenot
entitledtothereliefofinjunctionagainstthedefendants.Asagainstthejudgmentanddecreeof
thetrialcourt,anappealwaspreferredintheCourtofAdditionalDistrictJudge,NTRNagar,
Hyderabadandthesamewasdismissedon20.7.2000.SecondAppealNo.465/2001preferred
againstthesameintheHighCourtwasdismissedvidejudgmentandorderdated26.9.2001.

8.LandgrabbingproceedingsundertheAndhraPradeshLandGrabbing(Prohibition)Act,1982
initiatedbytheL.Rs.ofBalaMallaiahweredismissedbytheSpecialCourtinLGCNo.
148/1996videorderdated13.5.1997.Itwasheldthattheapplicationwasnotmaintainable.The
courttookcognizanceofthepreliminarydecreeproceedings,appointmentoftheCommissioner
andalsoheldthatitwasnotopentocontendthatthedoctrineoflispendenshadnoapplication.
Theapplicationwasultimatelydismissed.TheorderwasquestionedbywayoffilingW.P.No.
15577/2001intheHighCourtofAndhraPradesh.TheHighCourtsimplyobservedthatthe
observationsmadebythespecialcourtwouldnotcomeinthewayofthepetitionerstoworkout
theirrightsinaccordancewithlawinthepartitionsuit,thatistosayinthefinaldecree
proceedings.

9.TherewasyetanotherlitigationinitiatedbyBoddamNarsimha,nephewofBalaMallaiah.On
16.12.1998anapplicationwasfiledbeforetheTribunal,RangaReddyDistrict,seeking
declarationofprotectedtenancyundersection37AoftheA.P.(TelanganaArea)Tenancyand
AgriculturalLandsAct,1950.Thesamewasdismissedvideorderdated24.8.1999.Theappeal
preferredtotheJointCollectorwasalsodismissedon13.3.2000.CRPNo.2229/2000beforethe
HighCourtofJudicatureatAndhraPradeshwasdismissedbytheSingleJudgevideorderdated
16.4.2001.Aggrievedthereby,C.A.No.3429/2002BoddamNarsimhav.HasanAliKhan
(dead)byLRs.(2007)11SCC410wasfiled,andthesamewasalsodismissedbythisCourt.
10.TheHighCourtwhilepassingtheimpugnedjudgmentanddecreeunderappealhasheldthat
thesaledeeddated23.11.1959wasnothitbytheprincipleoflispendensundersection52ofthe
TransferofPropertyAct.Duringthependencyofthesuit,defendantNo.1hadleasedoutthe
landtoBalaMallaiahandlateronhadalienatedthesameon23.11.1959.Thedecisionofthis
CourtinBoddamNarsimha(supra)hadbeenreliedupontoholdthatBalaMallaiahwasdeclared
asPattedar,thatwouldbindalltheparties.Itwasnecessaryfortheplaintifftotakestepstoget
thesaledeeddated23.11.1959cancelledinaccordancewithlaw.Ithasalsobeenheldthatasthe
salebydefendantNo.1toBalaMallaiahwasnoteffectedduringlispendens,intheabsenceof
challengetothesaledeedandduetononimpleadmentinthesuit,byvirtueofadverse
possession,titlehasbeenperfected.Atthesametime,theHighCourthasheldthattillthefinal
decreeispassedthesuitissaidtobependingandthepreliminarydecreeonlydeterminesthe
rightsoftheparties.Thus,thefinaldecreewhichhasbeenpassedbythetrialcourtwithrespect
toitemNo.6ofplaintBschedulepropertywasimpracticable.

11.Itwassubmittedbylearnedseniorcounselappearingonbehalfoftheappellantsthatinfact
therewasnodismissalofthesuitin1955asheldbytheHighCourtintheyear1962.Thus,the
saledeeddated23.11.1959wasclearlyduringlispendens.Thesuitwasfiledintheyear1935
andthepreliminarydecreeforpartitionwaspassedintheyear1970andfinaldecreehasbeen
passedin2005.ItwasfurthercontendedthatitwasnotopentodefendantNo.1tosellmorethan
hisshare.HehadnoauthoritytosellthelandbelongingtotheshareofothercoheirsasMuslims
inheritthepropertyastenantsincommonandnotasjointtenants.Itwasfurthersubmittedthat
therewasnonecessityofquestioningthesaledeedasitwassubjecttotheprovisionsoflis
pendenscontainedinsection52ofT.P.Act.TheHighCourthasgravelyerredinlawinholding
thatthetitlehadbeenperfectedbyvirtueofadversepossession.Itwasalsocontendedthatthis
CourtinBoddamNarsimha(supra)didnotadjudicatethequestionoftitleofBalaMallaiah.
Thus,theHighCourthasgravelyerredinlawinreversingthejudgmentanddecreepassedby
thetrialcourtasaffirmedbythefirstappellatecourt.TheHighCourthasalsoerredinlawin
holdingthatitwasimpracticabletopassthedecreewithrespecttoitemNo.6ofscheduleB
property.

12.Learnedseniorcounselappearingonbehalfoftheappellantssubmittedthatthedecisionin
CivilSuitNo.289/1993forpermanentinjunctionwhichwasbasedupontitle,operatesasres
judicataonvariousissues.Thepleaofestoppelhasalsobeenraisedonbehalfoftheappellants.
Itwasfurthersubmittedthatthepleaofequitywithrespecttopartitionofpropertywasnot
availabletoBalaMallaiahortothepurchasersfromhim.

13.Itwasalsosubmittedonbehalfoftheappellantsthatthefinaldecreeproceedingsquaother
itemNo.2ofscheduleBpropertyhaveattainedfinalityinwhichtheorderpassedbythe
DivisionBenchoftheHighCourtofAndhraPradeshinLPANo.104/1997hasbeenaffirmedby
thisCourtbyaspeakingorderpassedinSLP[C]No.3558/1999decidedon1.10.1999.Thus,the
decisionofthisCourtisbindinguponthepartiesandthefindingsrecordedbytheHighCourt
thereinonquestionsoflawinitsjudgmenthaveattainedfinality.Thus,theHighCourthaserred
inlawinholdingotherwise.

14.Learnedseniorcounselappearingonbehalfofrespondentshavesubmittedthatthesaledeed
dated23.11.1959infavourofBalaMallaiahisvalidandbindingasdisputedlandcouldhave
beenalienatedevenduringthependencyofthesuitforpartition.Itwasstrenuouslysubmittedon
behalfoftherespondentsthatthesaleinquestioncouldnotbesaidtobeduringlispendensas
thesuitinfactstooddismissedin1955andwaslateronrevivedbytheHighCourtin1962.The
decisionofthisCourtinBoddamNarsimha(supra)isbindinginwhichfoundationalbasisforthe
judgmentwasthefactthatBalaMallaiahwasapattedaroftheland,anditwasnecessaryto
avoidthesaledeedinquestionbygettingitcancelledinaccordancewithlawwithintheperiod
oflimitationandthatbyvirtueofadversepossession,therightandinteresthadbeenperfectedby
thepurchasers.Itwasalsosubmittedthatevenotherwise,theequitiesavailabletoapurchaser
oughttohavebeenappliedinthepresentcaseastheprincipleofequitableadjustmentis
applicabletoMohammedanLawandthedisputedpropertyoughttohavebeenallottedtothe
shareofdefendantNo.1inordertoadjusttheequitieswithoutaffectingtherightsofotherco
heirs.

15.ItwasfurtherurgedthatinviewofthedecisioninCivilSuitNo.294/1993,variousquestions
wereleftopentobeagitatedinthefinaldecreeproceedings.Itwasalsosubmittedthatinthe
judgmentdated24.11.1970withregardtopreliminarydecreeinpara93,purchasersweregiven
thelibertytoraisethequestionofequityinthefinaldecreeproceedings.Thus,theHighCourt
hasrightlyinterferedwiththefinaldecreewithrespecttothedisputedproperty.Evenifsection
52oftheT.P.Actisapplicable,thetransactionshitbylispendensarenotvoid.BalaMallaiah
hadacquiredtherightsofapattedar,nodecreecouldhavebeenpassedinfavourofL.Rs.ofLate
NawabJung.Consideringtheconductoftheappellants,nocaseforinterferenceismadeout.
Theycannotapprobateandreprobate.

16.Followingquestionsariseforconsiderationundertheappeals:

(i)WhetherthedecisioninOriginalSuitNo.294of1993operatesasresjudicata,ifyestowhat
extent?
(ii)Whetherthesaledeeddated23.11.1959executedbydefendantno.1infavourofBala
Mallaiahishitbydoctrineoflispendens?

(iii)Whethersection52ofT.P.Actrendersatransferpendentelitevoid?

(iv)Whatistheeffectofpreliminarydecreeforpartitionandtheextenttowhichitisbinding?

(v)Whetheritwasnecessarytofileasuitforcancellationofsaledeeddated23.11.1959?

(vi)WhetherBalaMallaiah,hisheirsandpurchasershadperfectedtheirright,titleandinterest
byvirtueofadversepossession?

(vii)WhetherundertheMuslimlaw,defendantno.1beingacosharercouldhavealienatedthe
shareofothercosharersinthedisputedproperty?

(viii)WhetherthepurchaserhasarighttoclaimequityforallotmentofItemNo.6ofSchedule
Bpropertyinfinaldecreeproceedingsinsuitforpartition?Ifyes,towhatextent?

(ix)Whethersalewasforlegalnecessity,andthusbinding?

(x)WhatistheeffectofproceedingsundertheTenancyAct,1950?

(xi)WhatistheeffectofdecisionofthisCourtandHighCourtwithrespecttofinaldecree
proceedingsinItemNo.2ofScheduleBproperty?

(xii)Whetherthereiswaiverofrightbyappellants?
(xiii)Whetherappellantsareguiltyofdelayorlaches?

(xiv)WhatistheeffectofthedecisionoftheCourtundertheUrbanLandCeilingAct?

,if
(i)Inre:whetherthedecisioninOriginalSuitNo.294of1993operatesasresjudicata
yes,towhatextent?

17.TwelveLRs.ofBalaMallaiahfiledtheaforesaidsuitagainstMohd.HasimAliKhanand13
otherheirsofLateNawabJung.ThesuitwaswithrespecttoItemNo.6ofScheduleBthatis
withrespecttosurveyNos.63and68to70comprisedinarea68acres10guntassituatedat
villageMadhapurinerstwhileWestTaluk,HyderabaddistrictnowknownasSerilingampally
Mandal.

18.ItwasaverredintheplaintthatHamidAliKhanhadsoldthelandtoBalaMallaiahbysale
deeddated23.11.1959afterobtainingduepermissionundertheAndhraPradeshTenancyand
AgriculturalLandsAct,1950(hereinafterreferredtoastheActof1950).Thoughthelandwas
purchasedinthenameofBalaMallaiahbutitwashisjointfamilypropertyalongwithtwo
brothers,namely,KomaraiahandAgaiah.BalaMallaiahdiedintheyear1975.Hisundivided
1/3rdsharedevolveduponplaintiffNos.1and2.PlaintiffNos.3and4aresonsofplaintiffNo.1
andplaintiffNo.5isthesonofplaintiffNo.2.Komaraiah,brotherofBalaMallaiahalsodied
andhis1/3rdinteresthaddevolveduponplaintiffNos.6and7.AgaiahplaintiffNo.8isthe
brotherofBalaMallaiahandplaintiffNos.9to12arehissons.

19.Itwasfurtheraverredthattheplaintiffenteredintoadeveloper'sagreementwithrespectto
residentialplotswithM/s.SuryaLandDevelopers&Promoterswithrespectto13acres17
guntasformingpartofsurveyNo.68and12acres31guntasinsurveyNo.69.Another
agreementwasenteredintowithBapujiEstateswithrespectto6acresofareaoutofsurveyNo.
69.PlotscomprisedinsurveyNos.68&69werealsosoldtovariouspersons.SurveyNo.69
wasalsosoldinentirety.ApreliminarydecreeforpartitionwaspassedinO.S.No.42/1962in
theyear1970whichcomprisedofdisputedpropertyalso.BalaMallaiahortheplaintiffsand
otherheirswerenotimpleadedaspartiesintheaforesaidsuitforpartitionandundertheguiseof
decreethedefendantswereclaimingownershipandthreateningtodispossesstheplaintiffs
forcibly.Inthesuitforpartition,duringfinaldecreeproceedings,anAdvocateCommissioner
hadbeenappointedwhovisitedthedisputedpropertyon15.8.1993.Hence,suitNo.294/1993
wasfiledforperpetualinjunction.

20.Thedefendantsintheirwrittenstatementcontendedthatthesuitwasnotmaintainable.The
preliminarydecreeforpartitiondated24.11.1970wasbindinginwhichsharesofrespective
partieshadbeendeclared.Suitforpartitionwasfiledintheyear1935.Thesaletransaction
betweenHamidAliKhanandBalaMallaiahwasvoidandconferrednoright,titleorinterest
upontheplaintiffs.Plaintiffshadnorighttointerfereinthesharesallottedtoothercoheirsin
thesuitforpartition.Thepropertyinquestionwasancestralproperty.Thefindingsrecordedin
preliminarydecreeagainstdefendantNo.1,vendorofBalaMallaiaharebindinguponthe
plaintiffs,andassuchtheyarenotentitledforanyrelief.

21.Itisapparentthatthesuitforpermanentinjunctionwasfiledbytheplaintiffsonthebasisof
saledeeddated23.11.1959inwhichitwasalsosubmittedthatitwasnotduringlispendens.Plea
ofadversepossessionhadalsobeenraisedwhichwasnegatived.Theyclaimedinjunctiononthe
basisofpossessionunderthesaledeeddated23.11.1959.Thetrialcourtintheaforesaidcivil
suitgavethefollowingfindingsagainsttheplaintiff:(i)thatthepurchasewashitbydoctrineof
lispendenssothattheyarenotentitledforreliefofinjunctionagainstthedefendantswhoareco
sharersasperthepreliminarydecreedated24.11.1970passedinthepartitionsuit;(ii)itwasalso
heldthatthepossessionoftheplaintiffcouldnotbesaidtobearightfulpossession.Itisnotopen
totheplaintifftoclaimrightonthebasisofsaledeedonthegroundthattheywerenotpartiesto
thepartitionsuit.Itwasalsoheldthatwhatevertheirvendorswouldgetinthesuitforpartition,
tothatextenttheywouldbeentitledtoandtheycouldnotclaimrightsovertheentireproperty;
(iii)thepleaofadversepossessionwasalsonegativedbythetrialcourtonthegroundthatthe
purchasewasduringlispendensandtherewasnopleadingorevidenceregardingadverse
possession.

22.Thejudgmentwasaffirmedinthefirstappealvidejudgmentanddecreedated8.6.1988
passedbytheCourtofIIAdditionalDistrictJudge,NTRNagar,HyderabadinA.S.No.72/1998.
Itwasheldthatthesaledeedwashitbydoctrineoflispendens.Thefirstappellatecourtalso
heldthatthevendorofBalaMallaiahnamely,HamidAliKhan,defendant1,hadnorighttosell
theentiredisputepropertytoBalaMalliahasabsoluteowner.Theplaintiffscouldclaimright
overthepropertytotheextentofvendorofBalaMallaiah.Itwasalsoheldthatthelandgrabbing
caseLGCNo.148/1996wasdismissedwhichorderhadattainedfinalityandbarredthepresent
suit.Injunctioncouldnotbegrantedinviewofthepreliminarydecreeforpartitionwhichhad
beenpassedasitwouldtantamounttograntinginjunctionagainstthedecreeholdersfor
enforcingtheirlawfuldecree.Beingapurchaserlispendens,itisopentotheplaintiffto
approachthecourtwherethefinaldecreeproceedingswerependingtoworkoutavailableequity
totheextentofvendor'sshare.Againstthesaiddecisioninfirstappeal,SecondAppealNo.
465/2011wasfiledintheHighCourtofAndhraPradeshatHyderabadwhichwasdismissedin
liminevideorderdated26.9.2011asnosubstantialquestionoflawwasfoundinvolvedinthe
appeal.Judgmentanddecreesofcourtsbelowwerethusaffirmed.

23.Inviewofthecategoricalfindingsrecordedbythetrialcourtandfirstappellatecourtitis
apparentthatthesaledeeddated23.11.1959washitbydoctrineoflispendensandsecondlyon
thebasisofthesaidsaledeed,L.Rs.ofBalaMallaiahcouldhaveclaimedonlytotheextentof
theshareofhisvendorandnottheentireland,i.e.onlytotheextentof14/104thshareof
defendantNo.1.

24.Withrespecttoeffectofsuitforpermanentinjunctionbasedupontitle,effectofnegativing
titlehasbeenconsideredbythisCourt.InSajjadanashinSayedMd.B.E.Edr.(D)byLRs.v.
MusaDadabhaiUmmer(2000)3SCC350,ithasbeenheld:

24.Beforepartingwiththispoint,wewouldliketorefertotwomorerulings.InSulochana
Ammav.NarayananNair(1994)2SCC14thisCourtheldthatafindingastotitlegiveninan
earlierinjunctionsuitwouldberesjudicatainasubsequentsuitontitle.Ontheotherhand,the
MadrasHighCourt,inVanagiriSriSelliammanAyyanarUthirasomasundareswararTemplev.
RajangaAsariAIR1965Madras355held(seepara8therein)thattheprevioussuitwasonlyfor
injunctionrelatingtothecrops.Maybe,thequestionoftitlewasdecided,thoughnotraisedinthe
plaint.Inthelattersuitontitle,thefindingintheearliersuitontitlewouldnotberesjudicataas
theearliersuitwasconcernedonlywithapossessoryright.Thesetwodecisions,inouropinion,
cannotbetreatedasbeingcontrarytoeachotherbutshouldbeunderstoodinthecontextofthe
testsreferredtoabove.Eachofthemcanperhapsbetreatedascorrectiftheyareunderstoodin
thelightofthetestsstatedabove.InthefirstcasedecidedbythisCourt,itistobeassumedthat
thetestsabovereferredtoweresatisfiedforholdingthatthefindingastopossessionwas
substantiallyrestedontitleuponwhichafindingwasfeltnecessaryandinthelattercase
decidedbytheMadrasHighCourt,itmustbeassumedthatthetestswerenotsatisfied.Asstated
inMulla,italldependsonthefactsofeachcaseandwhetherthefindingastotitlewastreated
asnecessaryforgrantofaninjunctionintheearliersuitandwasalsothesubstantivebasisfor
grantofinjunction.Inthiscontext,wemayrefertoCorpusJurisSecundum(Vol.50,para735,
p.229)whereasimilaraspectinregardtofindingsonpossessionandincidentalfindingson
titleweredealtwith.Itisstated:

Wheretitletopropertyisthebasisoftherightofpossession,adecisiononthequestionof
possessionisresjudicataonthequestionoftitletotheextentthatadjudicationoftitlewas
essentialtothejudgment;butwherethequestionoftherighttopossessionwastheonlyissue
actuallyornecessarilyinvolved,thejudgmentisnotconclusiveonthequestionofownershipor
title.

25.Wehavegoneintotheaboveaspectsinsomedetailsothatwhenaquestionarisesbeforethe
Courtsastowhetheranissuewasearlierdecidedonlyincidentallyorcollaterally,theCourts
coulddealwiththequestionasamatteroflegalprincipleratherthanonvaguegrounds.Point1
isdecidedaccordingly.

(emphasisaddedbyus)

25.InCommissionerofEndowmentsv.VittalRao(2005)4SCC120,ithasbeenheldthus:

28.Insupportofhissubmission,thelearnedcounselforRespondent1contendedthataslongas
anissuearisessubstantiallyinalitigationirrespectiveofthefactwhetherornotaformalissue
hasbeenframedoraformalreliefhasbeenclaimed,afindingonthesaidissuewouldoperateas
resjudicata,stronglyreliedonthedecisionofthisCourtinSajjadanashinSayedMd.B.E.Edr.v.
MusaDadabhaiUmmer(supra).Paras18and19ofthesaidjudgmentread:(SCCpp.35960)

18.InIndia,Mullahasreferredtosimilartests(Mulla,15thEdn.,p.104).Thelearnedauthor
says:amatterinrespectofwhichreliefisclaimedinanearliersuitcanbesaidtobegenerallya
matterdirectlyandsubstantiallyinissuebutitdoesnotmeanthatifthematterisoneinrespect
ofwhichnoreliefissoughtitisnotdirectlyorsubstantiallyinissue.Itmayormaynotbe.Itis
possiblethatitwasdirectlyandsubstantiallyinissueanditmayalsobepossiblethatitwasonly
collaterallyorincidentallyinissue,dependinguponthefactsofthecase.Thequestionarisesas
towhatisthetestfordecidingintowhichcategoryacasefalls?Onetestisthatiftheissuewas
necessarytobedecidedforadjudicatingontheprincipalissueandwasdecided,itwouldhave
tobetreatedasdirectlyandsubstantiallyinissueandifitisclearthatthejudgmentwasin
factbaseduponthatdecision,thenitwouldberesjudicatainalattercase(Mulla,p.104).One
hastoexaminetheplaint,thewrittenstatement,theissuesandthejudgmenttofindoutifthe
matterwasdirectlyandsubstantiallyinissue(IsherSinghv.SarwanSinghAIR1965SC948
andSyedMohd.SalieLabbaiv.Mohd.Hanifa(1976)4SCC780).Weareoftheviewthatthe
abovesummaryinMullaisacorrectstatementofthelaw.

19.WehaveheretoadverttoanotherprincipleofcautionreferredtobyMulla(p.105):
Itisnottobeassumedthatmattersinrespectofwhichissueshavebeenframedareallofthem
directlyandsubstantiallyinissue.Noristhereanyspecialsignificancetobeattachedtothefact
thataparticularissueisthefirstinthelistofissues.Whichofthemattersaredirectlyinissue
andwhichcollaterallyorincidentally,mustbedeterminedonthefactsofeachcase.Amaterial
testtobeappliediswhetherthecourtconsiderstheadjudicationoftheissuematerialand
essentialforitsdecision.

(emphasisinoriginalandsupplied)

29.Inthelightofwhatisstatedabove,inthecaseonhand,inourview,itwasnecessaryforthe
CourtintheearlierroundoflitigationtodecidethenatureandscopeofgiftdeedExt.A1.
Accordingly,thecourtsdecidedthatthegiftmadeinfavourofancestorsofRespondent1ofthe
landwasabsoluteanditwasnotanendowmentforapublicorcharitablepurpose.Onthefacts
ofthecase,itisclearthatthoughanissuewasnotformallyframed,theissuewasmaterialand
essentialforthedecisionofthecaseintheearlierproceeding.Hence,thebarofresjudicata
appliestothefactsofthepresentcase.

26.Reliancehasbeenplacedbylearnedseniorcounselfortherespondentsonadecisionin
AnathulaSudhakarv.P.BuchiReddy(dead)byLRs.(2008)4SCC594whereintheCourthad
summarizedtheconclusionsthus::

21.Tosummarise,thepositioninregardtosuitsforprohibitoryinjunctionrelatingto
immovableproperty,isasunder:

(a)Whereacloudisraisedovertheplaintiff'stitleandhedoesnothavepossession,asuitfor
declarationandpossession,withorwithoutaconsequentialinjunction,istheremedy.Wherethe
plaintiff'stitleisnotindisputeorunderacloud,butheisoutofpossession,hehastosuefor
possessionwithaconsequentialinjunction.Wherethereismerelyaninterferencewiththe
plaintiff'slawfulpossessionorthreatofdispossession,itissufficienttosueforaninjunction
simpliciter.
(b)Asasuitforinjunctionsimpliciterisconcernedonlywithpossession,normallytheissueof
titlewillnotbedirectlyandsubstantiallyinissue.Theprayerforinjunctionwillbedecidedwith
referencetothefindingonpossession.Butincaseswheredejurepossessionhastobe
establishedonthebasisoftitletotheproperty,asinthecaseofvacantsites,theissueoftitle
maydirectlyandsubstantiallyariseforconsideration,aswithoutafindingthereon,itwillnotbe
possibletodecidetheissueofpossession.

(c)Butafindingontitlecannotberecordedinasuitforinjunction,unlesstherearenecessary
pleadingsandappropriateissueregardingtitle(eitherspecific,orimpliedasnoticedin
AnnaimuthuThevarv.Alagammal(2005)6SCC202.Wheretheavermentsregardingtitleare
absentinaplaintandwherethereisnoissuerelatingtotitle,thecourtwillnotinvestigateor
examineorrenderafindingonaquestionoftitle,inasuitforinjunction.Evenwherethereare
necessarypleadingsandissue,ifthematterinvolvescomplicatedquestionsoffactandlaw
relatingtotitle,thecourtwillrelegatethepartiestotheremedybywayofcomprehensivesuitfor
declarationoftitle,insteadofdecidingtheissueinasuitformereinjunction.

(d)Wheretherearenecessarypleadingsregardingtitle,andappropriateissuerelatingtotitleon
whichpartiesleadevidence,ifthematterinvolvedissimpleandstraightforward,thecourtmay
decideupontheissueregardingtitle,eveninasuitforinjunction.Butsuchcases,arethe
exceptiontothenormalrulethatquestionoftitlewillnotbedecidedinsuitsforinjunction.But
personshavingcleartitleandpossessionsuingforinjunction,shouldnotbedriventothecostlier
andmorecumbersomeremedyofasuitfordeclaration,merelybecausesomemeddler
vexatiouslyorwrongfullymakesaclaimortriestoencroachuponhisproperty.Thecourtshould
useitsdiscretioncarefullytoidentifycaseswhereitwillenquireintotitleandcaseswhereitwill
refertotheplaintifftoamorecomprehensivedeclaratorysuit,dependinguponthefactsofthe
case.

27.ItwassubmittedonbehalfofrespondentsthatthefindingsinO.S.No.294/1993donot
operateasresjudicataasitwasleftultimatelytoraisetheobjectionsinthefinaldecree
proceedings.Weareunabletoaccepttheaforesaidsubmissionastherewasclearinabilityto
grantinjunctionandthesubmissionoftheplaintiffsthattheywerehavingtitleonentirelandon
thebasisofsaledeeddated23.11.1959,hadbeennegatived.ItwasfoundthatBalaMallaiah
couldhavepurchasedonlytheshareofhisvendorHamidAliandnottheentiredisputed
propertyandthepurchasewasaffectedbylispendens.Weareoftheconsideredopinionthatthe
findingwithrespecttopurchasebeingmadeduringlispendenshadattainedfinalityandwasnot
opentoquestioninthepresentproceedings.Besides,thevalidityofthesaledeedtotheextentof
theshareofthevendorwhichwassoughttobereagitatedinthefinaldecreeproceedings,was
alsonotopentoberaisedinviewofclearfindingsrecordedinthesuitof1993.Thoughwehave
heldso,howevernothingturnsontheaforesaidfindingastoresjudicataasweproposeto
examinebothaspectsonmeritsafresh,inviewoftheconclusionswhichweproposetorecord
hereinafter.

(ii)Inre:Whetherthesaledeeddated23.11.1959executedbydefendantNo.1infavourof
?
BalaMallaiahishitbydoctrineoflispendens

28.Intheinstantcase,asuitforpartitionwasfiledintheyear1935.OnabolitionofDarulQaza
Courtin1951thecasewastransferredtotheHighCourt.Onabolitionoforiginaljurisdictionof
theHighCourt,filewassenttothecitycivilcourt.ItappearsthatwhenthefilefromCustodian
didnotreachthecitycivilcourt,henceorderdated8.1.1955waspassedtothefollowingeffect:

8.1.1955ThisfilesummonedbytheCustodianisnotyetreceived.Astheplaintifftoois
absentandthefilenotyetreceivedthecasebeclosed.Itmayberevivedonlyonthereceiptof
thefileandtheapplicationoftheplaintiff.

29.Itisapparentfromtheaforesaidorderthatitwasclearlyanorderofkeepingthecasesinedie
tobetakenuponlyonreceiptofthefileonbeinginformedbyfilinganapplicationbythe
plaintiff.Thefilewasnotbeforethecourt.Thus,therewasnoquestionofdismissalofthecase
indefaultnorwasitsodismissedbythecourt.Howevertheplaintifflabouredunderwrong
impression,assuchfiledapplicationunderOrder9Rule9CPCandprayedforrestorationofthe
suit.Anorderwaspassedon1.12.1955bythecitycivilcourt,restoringthesuitonthebasisof
paymentofRs.50ascoststobepaidonorbefore15.12.1955.Costscouldnotbedepositedby
theplaintiffby15.12.1955.Theprayerwasmadetoacceptthecostson16.12.1955byextending
timeundersection148CPC.However,thecitycivilcourtdismissedthesaidapplication.The
orderwasquestionedintheHighCourtinappealfiledbytheplaintiffinwhichtheDivision
BenchoftheHighCourtvideorderdated5.2.1962hadheldthatthesuitinfactwasnot
dismissedfordefaulton8.1.1955bythetrialcourt.Itwasanorderadjourningthesuitwitha
directiontoberevivedonlyonthefilebeingreceivedfromtheCustodian.Therefore,therewas
nonecessityfortheplaintifftofileanapplicationunderOrder9Rule9CPC.TheHighCourt
hadsetasidetheorderdated8.1.1955andalsoheldthattherewasnojurisdictionwiththecity
civilcourttopassanorderon1.12.1955toimposeandpaycostsofRs.50.Thefollowingorder
waspassedintheyear1962bytheDivisionBenchoftheHighCourt:

Itisclearfromtheorderdated8155,thatthesuitwasnotdismissedfordefault.Virtually,itis
anorderadjourningthesuitwithadirectionthatitmayberevivedonlyonthereceiptofthefile
fromtheCustodian.Thereforetherewasnonecessityfortheplaintifftofiletheapplication
underOr.9,Rule9,CPC,prayingthatthesuitberestoredtoitsoriginalnumberaftersetting
asidetheorderdated8155.Theplaintiffcouldhavemerelyaskedthecourttotakeupthesuit
andtoproceedwiththetrial.ThelearnedJudgehasnojurisdictiontodirecttheplaintiffbyhis
orderdated11255topaydaycostsviz.,Rs.50/tothedefendantsonorbefore151255asa
conditionprecedent.Thisorderisclearlyillegalandhastobesetaside.

Intheresult,theappealisallowed,andtheorderdated11255directingtheplaintifftopaythe
defendantsRs.50/onorbefore151255asaconditionprecedenttorestrainingthesuitisset
aside.Asaconsequence,theorderdated7156isvacated.Sincethisisasuitof1951whichhas
beenpendingforalongtime,thelowercourtwilldisposeofthesameasexpeditiouslyas
possible.Thecontestingrespondentsshallpaythecostsoftheappellant.

30.Apreliminaryobjectionhasbeenraisedonbehalfoftherespondentsastoveryapplicability
ofdoctrineoflispendenstoMohammedanlawbaseduponprovisionscontainedinsection2of
T.P.Act.Section2isextractedhereunder:

2.RepealofActs.Savingofcertainenactments,incidents,rights,liabilities,etc.Inthe
territoriestowhichthisActextendsforthetimebeingtheenactmentsspecifiedintheSchedule
heretoannexedshallberepealedtotheextentthereinmentioned.Butnothinghereincontained
shallbedeemedtoaffect

(a)theprovisionsofanyenactmentnotherebyexpresslyrepealed;

(b)anytermsorincidentsofanycontractorconstitutionofpropertywhichareconsistentwith
theprovisionsofthisAct,andareallowedbythelawforthetimebeinginforce;

(c)anyrightorliabilityarisingoutofalegalrelationconstitutedbeforethisActcomesinto
force,oranyreliefinrespectofanysuchrightorliability;or

(d)saveasprovidedbysection57andChapterIVofthisAct,anytransferbyoperationoflawor
by,orinexecutionof,adecreeororderofaCourtofcompetentjurisdiction,
andnothinginthesecondChapterofthisActshallbedeemedtoaffectanyruleof
Muhammadanlaw.

31.Nodoubtaboutitthatsection2ofT.P.ActprotectsruleofMohammedanlawbyexcluding
theprovisionsofChapterIIcontainingsections5to53Athereof.Inouropinion,exclusionis
conditionaluponexistenceofruleofMohammedanlawinthatregard,thatistosayif
principle/ruleofMohammedanlawprovidesastotransferslispendens,thesamewouldprevail
andnothinginsection52ofT.P.Actshallbedeemedtoaffectanysuchrule.However,wehave
notbeenshownanysuchruleofMohammedanlawcontainingprovisionastolispendensand
thus,intheabsencewhereoftheprovisionsofsection52T.P.Actwouldbeattracted.The
submissionastononapplicabilityofsection52ofT.P.ActtoMohammedanlawishereby
rejected.

32.Itwassubmittedonbehalfoftherespondentsthatthesaledeedhadbeenexecutedafter
dismissalofthesuiton16.12.1955intermsoftheorderdated1.12.1955assuchdoctrineoflis
pendenswasnotattracted.Thus,itwassubmittedthatbetween15.12.1955and23.1.1962nosuit
waspending.ReliancehasbeenplacedonadecisioninBhutnathDasv.SahadebChandra
PanjaAIR1962Cal.485:

4.Therealquestion,therefore,iswhetherinacaselikethiswhereanorderhasbeenmade
forthepaymentofcertainmoneywithinacertaintimeforthepurposeofgettingspecific
performanceandatthesametimeanorderhasalsobeenmadethatifthemoneyisnotpaidthe
suitwillstanddismissed,thecourtretainsjurisdiction.Thoughnotwithouthesitation,Ihave
reachedtheconclusionthatinsuchacaseitwillbeunrealisticandunjusttosaythatthecourt
retainsjurisdiction.Whetherthecourthasretainedjurisdictionornotwill,inmyview,depend
verymuchonthesubstanceofthedirectionsgiven..Where..thecourtmakesalsoanorder
thatiftheamountisnotdepositedwithinthetimespecifiedthesuitwillstanddismissed,Ifindit
difficulttoagreethatthecourtretainsanyjurisdictionwhatsoever.

6...thetrialcourtlostjurisdictioninthesuitassoonasitmadetheorderdirectingthepayment
withinacertaintimeandfurtherdirectingthatonfailureofthedepositbeingmadewithinthe
timelimitedthecaseshouldstanddismissed.
33.ThedecisionofthisCourtinVareedJacobv.SosammaGeevarghese(2004)6SCC378has
beenrelieduponinwhichithasbeenlaiddownthus:

18.InthecaseofSaranathaAyyangarv.MuthiahMoopanarAIR1934Mad49ithasbeen
heldthatonrestorationofthesuitdismissedfordefaultallinterlocutorymattersshallstand
restored,unlesstheorderofrestorationsaystothecontrary.Thatasamatterofgeneralruleon
restorationofthesuitdismissedfordefault,allinterlocutoryordersshallstandrevivedunless
duringtheinterregnumbetweenthedismissalofthesuitandrestoration,thereisanyalienation
infavourofathirdparty.

EventhedissentingjudgmentofS.B.Sinha,J.hadonthispointnoted:

62.Itisalsoofsomeimportancethatthereexistsaviewthatanorderofdismissalofasuitdoes
notrenderanorderofattachmentvoidabinitioasasaleofpropertyunderorderofattachment
wouldbeinvalidevenafterthedateofsuchsaleandtheorderofattachmentiswithdrawn.

63.Aconversecasemayarisewhenthepropertyissoldafterthesuitisdismissedfordefaultand
beforethesameisrestored.Isitpossibletotakeaviewthatuponrestorationofsuitthesaleof
propertyunderattachmentbeforejudgmentbecomesinvalid?Theanswertothesaidquestion
mustberenderedinthenegative.Bytakingrecoursetotheinterpretationoftheprovisionsofthe
statute,thecourtcannotsaythatalthoughsuchasaleshallbevalidbuttheorderofattachment
shallrevive.Suchaconclusionbyreasonofajudgemadelawmaybeanillogicalone.

34.Itwassubmittedonbehalfoftheappellantsthatthesalewassubjecttothedoctrineoflis
pendensundersection52oftheT.P.Act.Itwasfurthersubmittedthatthesaidprovisionisclear
andunambiguousandthestatutoryexplanationtotheprovisionmakesitclearthatthependency
ofthesuitorproceedingshallbedeemedtocommencefromthedateofpresentationoftheplaint
ortheinstitutionoftheproceedinginthecourtofcompetentjurisdiction,andtocontinueuntil
thesuitorproceedinghasbeendisposedofbyadecreeoranorderandcompletesatisfactionof
orderordischargeofsuchorderordecreehasbeenobtainedorhasbecomeunobtainableby
reasonoftheexpirationofanyperiodoflimitationprescribedfortheexecutionthereof.Thus,
thetransferifanymadeincontraventionofSection52rendersitsubservienttotherightsofthe
partiesinlitigationsothattherightswouldeventuallybedeterminedinasuit.ThomsonPress
(India)Ltd.v.NanakBuildersandInvestorsPvt.Ltd.(2013)5SCC397,hasbeenreliedonin
whichthisCourthaslaiddownthus:
26.Itwouldalsobeworthdiscussingsomeoftherelevantlawsinordertoappreciatethecase
onhand.Section52oftheTransferofPropertyActspeaksaboutthedoctrineoflispendens.
Section52readsasunder:

52.Transferofpropertypendingsuitrelatingthereto.Duringthependencyinanycourt
havingauthoritywithinthelimitsofIndiaexcludingtheStateofJammuandKashmiror
establishedbeyondsuchlimitsbytheCentralGovernmentofanysuitorproceedingwhichisnot
collusiveandinwhichanyrighttoimmovablepropertyisdirectlyandspecificallyinquestion,
thepropertycannotbetransferredorotherwisedealtwithbyanypartytothesuitorproceeding
soastoaffecttherightsofanyotherpartytheretounderthedecreeororderwhichmaybemade
therein,exceptundertheauthorityofthecourtandonsuchtermsasitmayimpose.

Explanation.Forthepurposesofthissection,thependencyofasuitorproceedingshallbe
deemedtocommencefromthedateofthepresentationoftheplaintortheinstitutionofthe
proceedinginacourtofcompetentjurisdiction,andtocontinueuntilthesuitorproceedinghas
beendisposedofbyafinaldecreeororderandcompletesatisfactionordischargeofsuchdecree
ororderhasbeenobtained,orhasbecomeunobtainablebyreasonoftheexpirationofanyperiod
oflimitationprescribedfortheexecutionthereofbyanylawforthetimebeinginforce.

Itiswellsettledthatthedoctrineoflispendensisadoctrinebasedonthegroundthatitis
necessaryfortheadministrationofjusticethatthedecisionofacourtinasuitshouldbebinding
notonlyonthelitigatingpartiesbutonthosewhoderivetitlependentelite.Theprovisionofthis
sectiondoesnotindeedannultheconveyanceorthetransferotherwise,buttorenderit
subservienttotherightsofthepartiestoalitigation.

27.Discussingtheprinciplesoflispendens,thePrivyCouncilinGouriDuttMaharajv.Sk.
SukurMohammedAIR1948PC147observedasunder:(IAp.170)

ThebroadpurposeofSection52istomaintainthestatusquounaffectedbytheactofany
partytothelitigationpendingitsdetermination.Theapplicabilityofthesectioncannotdepend
onmattersofprooforthestrengthorweaknessofthecaseononesideortheotherinbonafide
proceedings.Toapplyanysuchtestistomisconceivetheobjectoftheenactmentand,inthe
viewoftheBoard,thelearnedSubordinateJudgewasinerrorinthisrespectinlayingstress,as
hedid,onthefactthattheagreementof861932,hadnotbeenregistered.
28.InKedarNathLalv.GaneshRamAIR1970SC1717,thisCourtreferredtheearlierdecision
inSamarendraNathSinhav.KrishnaKumarNagAIR1967SC1440andobserved:(Kedar
NathLalcase(supra),SCCp.792,para17)

17.16.Thepurchaserpendenteliteunderthisdoctrineisboundbytheresultofthe
litigationontheprinciplethatsincetheresultmustbindthepartytoitsomustitbindtheperson
derivinghisright,titleandinterestfromorthroughhim.Thisprincipleiswellillustratedin
RadhamadhubHolderv.MonohurMookerji(188788)15IA97wherethefactswerealmost
similartothoseintheinstantcase.ItistruethatSection52strictlyspeakingdoesnotapplyto
involuntaryalienationssuchascourtsalesbutitiswellestablishedthattheprincipleoflis
pendensappliestosuchalienations.(SeeNilakantBanerjiv.SureshChunderMullick(188485)
12IA171andMotiLalv.KarrabulDin(189697)24IA170)(SamarendraNathcase(supra),
AIRp.1445,para16)

29.TheaforesaidSection52oftheTransferofPropertyActagaincameupforconsideration
beforethisCourtinRajenderSinghv.SantaSinghAIR1973SC2537andTheirLordshipswith
approvaloftheprincipleslaiddowninJayaramMudaliarv.Ayyaswami(1972)2SCC200
reiterated:(RajenderSinghcase(supra),SCCp.711,para15)

15.Thedoctrineoflispendenswasintendedtostrikeatattemptsbypartiestoalitigationto
circumventthejurisdictionofacourt,inwhichadisputeonrightsorinterestsinimmovable
propertyispending,byprivatedealingswhichmayremovethesubjectmatteroflitigationfrom
theambitofthecourt'spowertodecideapendingdisputeorfrustrateitsdecree.Alienees
acquiringanyimmovablepropertyduringalitigationoveritareheldtobebound,byan
applicationofthedoctrine,bythedecreepassedinthesuiteventhoughtheymaynothavebeen
impleadedinit.Thewholeobjectofthedoctrineoflispendensistosubjectpartiestothe
litigationaswellasothers,whoseektoacquirerightsinimmovableproperty,whicharethe
subjectmatterofalitigation,tothepowerandjurisdictionofthecourtsoastopreventtheobject
ofapendingactionfrombeingdefeated.

35.ReliancehasbeenplacedonA.NawabJohnv.V.N.Subramaniyam(2012)7SCC738,
layingdownthus:
18.ItissettledlegalpositionthattheeffectofSection52isnottorendertransferseffected
duringthependencyofasuitbyapartytothesuitvoid;butonlytorendersuchtransfers
subservienttotherightsofthepartiestosuchsuit,asmaybe,eventually,determinedinthesuit.
Inotherwords,thetransferremainsvalidsubject,ofcourse,totheresultofthesuit.The
pendentelitepurchaserwouldbeentitledtoorsufferthesamelegalrightsandobligationsofhis
vendorasmaybeeventuallydeterminedbythecourt.

12.Themerependencyofasuitdoesnotpreventoneofthepartiesfromdealingwiththe
propertyconstitutingthesubjectmatterofthesuit.Thesectiononlypostulatesaconditionthat
thealienationwillinnomanneraffecttherightsoftheotherpartyunderanydecreewhichmay
bepassedinthesuitunlessthepropertywasalienatedwiththepermissionofthecourt.(Sanjay
Vermav.ManikRoy(2006)13SCC608,SCCp.612,para12.)

36.ReliancehasbeenplacedonSanjayVermav.ManikRoy,(2006)13SCC608,inwhichthis
Courtlaiddown:

10.BibiZubaidaKhatooncase(2004)1SCC191onwhichlearnedcounselfortherespondents
hadplacedrelianceinfactgoesagainstthestandoftherespondents.Thoughacasualreadingof
para9supportsthestandtakenbytherespondents,itistobenotedthatthefactualpositionwas
entirelydifferent.Infactacrosssuithadbeenfiledinthesuitinthatcase.Therespondents
beingtransfereespendentelitewithoutleaveofthecourtcannotasofrightseekimpleadmentin
thesuitwhichwasintheinstantcasependingforaverylongtime.Infactinpara10ofthe
judgmentthisCourthasheldthatthereisabsolutelynorulethatthetransfereependentelite
withoutleaveofthecourtshouldinallcasescontestthependingsuit.InSarvinderSinghv.
DalipSingh(1996)5SCC539itwasobservedinpara6asfollows:(SCCpp.54142,para6)

6.Section52oftheTransferofPropertyActenvisagesthat:

DuringthependencyinanycourthavingauthoritywithinthelimitsofIndiaofanysuitor
proceedingwhichisnotcollusiveandinwhichanyrighttoimmovablepropertyisdirectlyand
specificallyinquestion,thepropertycannotbetransferredorotherwisedealtwithbyanyparty
tothesuitorproceedingsoastoaffecttherightsofanyotherpartytheretounderthedecreeor
orderwhichmaybemadetherein,exceptundertheauthorityofthecourtandonsuchtermsasit
mayimpose.
Itwould,therefore,beclearthatthedefendantsinthesuitwereprohibitedbyoperationof
Section52todealwiththepropertyandcouldnottransferorotherwisedealwithitinanyway
affectingtherightsoftheappellantexceptwiththeorderorauthorityofthecourt.Admittedly,
theauthorityororderofthecourthadnotbeenobtainedforalienationofthoseproperties.
Therefore,thealienationobviouslywouldbehitbythedoctrineoflispendensbyoperationof
Section52.Underthesecircumstances,therespondentscannotbeconsideredtobeeither
necessaryorproperpartiestothesuit.

12.TheprinciplesspecifiedinSection52oftheTPActareinaccordancewithequity,good
conscienceorjusticebecausetheyrestuponanequitableandjustfoundationthatitwillbe
impossibletobringanactionorsuittoasuccessfulterminationifalienationsarepermittedto
prevail.Atransfereependenteliteisboundbythedecreejustasmuchashewasapartytothe
suit.TheprincipleoflispendensembodiedinSection52oftheTPActbeingaprincipleof
publicpolicy,noquestionofgoodfaithorbonafidearises.TheprincipleunderlyingSection52
isthatalitigatingpartyisexemptedfromtakingnoticeofatitleacquiredduringthependencyof
thelitigation.Themerependencyofasuitdoesnotpreventoneofthepartiesfromdealingwith
thepropertyconstitutingthesubjectmatterofthesuit.Thesectiononlypostulatesacondition
thatthealienationwillinnomanneraffecttherightsoftheotherpartyunderanydecreewhich
maybepassedinthesuitunlessthepropertywasalienatedwiththepermissionofthecourt.

37.Itwasalsosubmittedonbehalfoftheappellantsthattheexpressioninsection52oftheT.P.
Actsuitorproceedingsisalsoapplicabletotheapplications.Anapplicationseekingextension
oftimeisalsoaproceedingwithinthemeaningofthesaidprovisionandappealfiledisalso
continuationofthesuitorproceedingsbutcomeswithinthemeaningoftheproceedings.The
legislativeintentbehindtheamendmentofsection52wasnotonlytocoverthesuitbutalsoto
coverappealsandproceedingsandsamewouldincludeallapplications/appealsundertheCPC.
AnapplicationunderOrder9Rule9wouldalsobecoveredwithinthemeaningoftheexpression
suitorotherproceedingstowhichthedoctrineoflispendenswouldapply.Itwasalsosubmitted
thatsection52priortoamendmentprohibitedtransfermadeduringtheactiveprosecutionofa
suit.Section52oftheTransferofPropertyAct,embodiestheruleoflispendens,whichpriorto
itsamendmentonlyprohibitedatransfermadeduringtheactiveprosecutionofasuitora
proceedinginwhichanyrighttoimmoveablepropertywasdirectlyandspecificallyinquestion.
Theexpressionactiveprosecution,whichexistedinthesectionbeforeitsamendmentin1929,
ledtomuchuncertaintyintheapplicationoftherule,andcausedadivergenceofjudicial
opinion.Itwasfeltthatthestandardofdiligence,whichwouldconstituteactiveprosecution,
couldnotbedefinedwithprecision.Toremovethisuncertainty,thelawwasamendedin1929,
andtheAmendingActXXof1929substitutedthewordpendencyforthephraseactive
prosecution;andtherecannowbenodifficultyindecidingwhetherthetransferwasmade
duringthependencyofasuitorproceeding.InParmeshariDinv.RamCharanAIR1937PC
260,itwasheld:
2.Itisclearthatthequestionoftheactiveprosecutionofasuitisoneoffact,butitwasnot
suggestedineitheroftheCourtsinIndiathattheplaintiffshadnotactivelyprosecutedthesuit,
andwereconsequentlydebarredfromavailingthemselvesoftheruleoflispendens.Thelearned
JudgesoftheCourtofAppealhad,therefore,noopportunitytoexpresstheiropiniononthis
point;andtheirLordshipscannotentertainanobjection,whichdependsuponaquestionoffact
notdealtwithbelow.Upontherecordbeforethem,thereisnoindicationofanydelayor
remissnessintheprosecutionofthesuit,forwhichtheplaintiffscanbeheldresponsible.Their
Lordships,therefore,agreewiththeHighCourtthatthetransferrelieduponbytheappellant
cannotprejudicetherightsofthedecreeholders,andthathecannotresistthedecreeobtainedby
them.

38.Theabovesaidprincipleoflawsettledintheyear1937bythePrivyCouncilisstillvalidas
discernedfromthelatestjudgmentofthisCourtrenderedinthecaseofKirpalKaurv.Jitender
PalSingh(2015)9SCC356:

21.Theexecutionoftheallegedgiftdeedbythedeceasedfirstdefendantinfavourofthe
seconddefendantisalsohitbySection52oftheTransferofPropertyAct,1882,asthesaiddeed
wasexecutedduringthependencyoftheproceedingsandbeforetheexpiryoftheperiodof
limitationforfilingSLP.Further,duringthependencyoftheseproceedings,thesecond
defendant,whohasclaimedtobetheallegedbeneficiaryofthesuitScheduleBpropertyon
thebasisofallegedgiftdeedshouldhavesoughtleaveofthisCourtasthedoneeandbroughtthe
aforesaidfactofexecutionoftheallegedgiftdeedinrespectofBschedulepropertybythe
deceasedfirstdefendant,whichpropertyhasbeendevolvedinhisfavour,tothenoticeofthis
CourtasprovidedunderOrder22Rule10oftheCPCanddefendedhisrightasrequiredunder
thelawaslaiddownbythisCourtinacatenaofcases.

xxxxx

26.Thelegalityoftheallegedgiftdeedexecutedinfavouroftheseconddefendantbythe
deceasedfirstdefendantinrespectoftheScheduleBpropertyhasbeenfurtherexaminedbyus
andthesameishitbySection52oftheTransferofPropertyAct,1882,inthelightofthe
decisionofthisCourtinthecaseofJaganSinghv.Dhanwanti(2012)2SCC628,whereinthis
CourthaslaiddownthelegalprinciplethatunderSection52oftheTransferofPropertyAct,
1882,theliscontinuessolongasafinaldecreeororderhasnotbeenobtainedfromtheCourt
andacompletesatisfactionthereofhasnotbeenrenderedtotheaggrievedpartycontestingthe
civilsuit.IthasbeenfurtherheldbythisCourtthatitwouldbeplainlyimpossiblethatanyaction
orsuitcouldbebroughttoasuccessfulterminationifalienationspendentelitewerepermittedto
prevail.

39.WhereinthefactumoftheallegedgiftdeedwasnotmadeknowntotheCourt.Thishasbeen
extrapolatedinthecaseofJaganSingh(dead)throughLRs.v.Dhanwanti(2012)2SCC628
thus:

32.ThebroadprincipleunderlyingSection52oftheTPActistomaintainthestatusquo
unaffectedbytheactofanypartytothelitigationpendingitsdetermination.Evenafterthe
dismissalofasuit,apurchaserissubjecttolispendens,ifanappealisafterwardsfiled,asheldin
KrishanajiPandharinathv.AnusayabaiAIR(1959)Bom475.Inthatmattertherespondent
(originalplaintiff)hadfiledasuitformaintenanceagainstherhusbandandclaimedachargeon
hishouse.Thesuitwasdismissedon15.7.1952underOrder9Rule2,oftheCodeofCivil
Procedure1908,fornonpaymentofprocessfee.Thehusbandsoldthehouseimmediatelyon
17.7.1952.Therespondentappliedforrestorationon29.7.1952,andthesuitwasrestoredleading
toadecreeformaintenanceandachargewasdeclaredonthehouse.Theplaintiffimpleadedthe
appellanttothedarkhastaspurchaser.TheAppellantresistedthesamebycontendingthatthe
salewasaffectedwhenthesuitwasdismissed.RejectingthecontentiontheHighCourtheldin
para4asfollows:

..InSection52oftheTransferofPropertyAct,asitstoodbeforeitwasamendedbyAct20of
1929,theexpressionactiveprosecutionofanysuitorproceedingwasused.Thatexpression
hasnowbeenomitted,andtheExplanationmakesitabundantlyclearthattheliscontinuesso
longasafinaldecreeororderhasnotbeenobtainedandcompletesatisfactionthereofhasnot
beenrendered.Atp.228inSirDinshahMulla'sTransferofPropertyAct,4thEdn.,after
referringtoseveralauthorities,thelawisstatedthus:

Evenafterthedismissalofasuitapurchaserissubjecttolispendens,ifanappealis
afterwardsfiled.

Ifafterthedismissalofasuitandbeforeanappealispresented,theliscontinuessoasto
preventthedefendantfromtransferringthepropertytotheprejudiceoftheplaintiff,Ifailtosee
anyreasonforholdingthatbetweenthedateofdismissalofthesuitunderOrder9Rule2ofthe
CivilProcedureCodeandthedateofitsrestoration,thelisdoesnotcontinue.
33.ItisrelevanttonotethatevenwhenSection52ofTPActwasnotsoamended,aDivision
BenchofAllahabadHighCourthadfollowingtosayinMotiChandv.BritishIndiaCorpn.Ltd.
AIR(1932)All210:

10,.TheprovisionoflawwhichhasbeenrelieduponbytheappellantsiscontainedinSection
52,TPAct.Theactiveprosecutioninthissectionmustbedeemedtocontinuesolongasthesuit
ispendinginappeal,sincetheproceedingsintheappellatecourtaremerelycontinuationofthose
inthesuit(seeGobindChunderRoyv.GuruChurnKurmokarILR198815Cal.94).

34.Ifsuchaviewisnottaken,itwouldplainlybeimpossiblethatanyactionorsuitcouldbe
broughttoasuccessfulterminationifalienationspendentelitewerepermittedtoprevail.The
Explanationtothissectionlaysdownthatthependencyofasuitoraproceedingshallbedeemed
tocontinueuntilthesuitoraproceedingisdisposedofbyfinaldecreeororder,andcomplete
satisfactionordischargeofsuchdecreeororderhasbeenobtainedorhasbecomeunobtainable
byreasonoftheexpirationofanyperiodoflimitationprescribedfortheexecutionthereofbyany
lawforthetimebeinginforce.

35.Inthepresentcase,itwouldbecanvassedonbehalfoftherespondentandtheapplicantthat
thesalehastakenplaceinfavouroftheapplicantatatimewhentherewasnostayoperating
againstsuchsale,andinfactwhenthesecondappealhadnotbeenfiled.Wewouldhowever,
prefertofollowthedictainKrishanajiPandharinathAIR1959Bom475tocoverthepresent
situationundertheprincipleoflispendenssincethesalewasexecutedatatimewhenthesecond
appealhadnotbeenfiledbutwhichcametobefiledafterwardswithintheperiodoflimitation.
Thedoctrineoflispendensisfoundedinpublicpolicyandequity,andifithastoberead
meaningfullysuchasaleasinthepresentcaseuntiltheperiodoflimitationforsecondappealis
overwillhavetobeheldascoveredunderSection52oftheTPAct.

40.Thedoctrineoflispendenswouldbeapplicableeventotheproceedingsinthenatureofan
appealashasbeenemphasizedinthecaseofKrishanajiPandharinathv.AnusayabaiAIR1959
Bom475thus:

3.ItistruethatinthiscasethesaleeffectedbySidramwasafterthedismissalofthesuitfiled
byAnusayabaiandbeforethesuitwasrestored,butthealienationbeingbefore,thefinaldecree
ororderwaspassedandcompletesatisfactionordischargeofthedecreewasobtained,itmustbe
regardedaspendentelite.Ins.52oftheTransferofPropertyAct,asitstoodbeforeitwas
amendedbyActXXof1929,theexpressionactiveprosecutionofanysuitorproceedingwas
used.Thatexpressionhasnowbeenomitted,andtheExplanationmakesitabundantlyclearthat
theliscontinuessolongasafinaldecreeororderhasnotbeenobtainedandcomplete
satisfactionthereofhasnotbeenrendered.Atpage228inSirDinshahMulla'sTransferof
PropertyAct,4thedn.,afterreferringtoseveralauthorities,thelawisstatedthus:

Evenafterthedismissalofasuitapurchaserissubjecttolispendens,ifanappealis
afterwardsfiled.

41.Weareunabletoacceptthesubmissionsraisedonbehalfoftherespondentsthattherewas
hiatusbetween10.12.1955and1962tilltheorderwaspassedbytheHighCourtasitwas
misunderstoodbythepartiesthatthesuithadbeendismissed.Inouropinion,whenthesuititself
hadnotbeendismissedvideorderdated8.1.1955,theeventssubsequenttheretoi.e.thetrial
courtvideorderdated1.12.1955treateditashavingbeendismissedorthattheplaintiffalsowas
leftunderawrongimpressionthatthesuithadbeendismissedindefaultandcostwasimposed
on1.12.1955anditwasnotpaidupto15.12.1955,wouldmakenodifference.Duetonon
paymentofcosts,byorderdated1.12.1955thesuitstooddismissed,cannotbeaccepted,asthe
orderwasnonestintheeyeoflaw.Itwasanillegalorderoftreatingapendingsuitashaving
beendismissed.Nolegalfictioncanbecreatedsoastotreatthesuitashavingbeendismissed
wheninfactithadnotbeendismissedatallandasamatteroffactsuithadnotbeendismissed
on8.1.1955.Subsequentorderorimpositionofcostsforitsrestorationwasnonestandillegal
andwasrightlysetasidebytheHighCourt.Whensuithadnotbeendismissedatallintheeyeof
law,itistobetreatedaspendingonly.Nolegalfictioncanbecreatedinfavourofthe
respondentsthatthesuititselfhadbeendismissedon15.12.1955duetononpaymentofcostsfor
restoration;whereasitwasnotdismissedatallandtheHighCourthasalsoheldthattheorder
dated1.12.1955waswithoutjurisdiction.Thesaidorderhastobeignoredandwasinfactset
asidebytheHighCourt.Thusthesuitwasinfactpendingandwaswronglytreatedashaving
beendismissed.TheHighCourthasrightlyheldthatitwasneverdismissed.Thus,inour
opinion,thesaledeedinquestiondated23.11.1959wasexecutedduringlispendensandthe
HighCourthaserredinlawinholdingotherwiseinthejudgmentimpugnedherein.

void?
(iii)Inre:whethersection52ofT.P.Actrendersatransferpendentelite

42.ReliancehasbeenplacedbylearnedseniorcounselfortherespondentsonVinodSethv.
DevinderBajaj(2010)8SCC1inwhichthisCourthaslaiddownthatthedoctrineoflis
pendensdoesnotaffecttheconveyancebyapartytothesuitbutonlyrendersitsubservientto
therightsofotherpartiestothelitigation.Section52willnotthereforerenderatransactionvoid.
ThisCourthaslaiddownthus:

42.Itiswellsettledthatthedoctrineoflispendensdoesnotannultheconveyancebyapartyto
thesuit,butonlyrendersitsubservienttotherightsoftheotherpartiestothelitigation.Section
52willnotthereforerenderatransactionrelatingtothesuitpropertyduringthependencyofthe
suitvoidbutrenderthetransferinoperativeinsofarastheotherpartiestothesuit.Transferofany
right,titleorinterestinthesuitpropertyortheconsequentialacquisitionofanyright,titleor
interest,duringthependencyofthesuitwillbesubjecttothedecisioninthesuit.

43.TheprincipleunderlyingSection52oftheTPActisbasedonjusticeandequity.The
operationofthebarunderSection52ishoweversubjecttothepowerofthecourttoexemptthe
suitpropertyfromtheoperationofSection52subjecttosuchconditionsitmayimpose.That
meansthatthecourtinwhichthesuitispending,hasthepower,inappropriatecases,topermita
partytotransferthepropertywhichisthesubjectmatterofthesuitwithoutbeingsubjectedto
therightsofanyparttothesuit,byimposingsuchtermsasitdeemsfit.Havingregardtothe
factsandcircumstances,weareoftheviewthatthisisafitcasewherethesuitpropertyshould
beexemptedfromtheoperationofSection52oftheTPAct,subjecttoaconditionrelatingto
reasonablesecurity,sothatthedefendantswillhavethelibertytodealwiththepropertyinany
mannertheymaydeemfit,inspiteofthependencyofthesuit.

43.ReliancehasalsobeenplacedonA.NawabJohnv.V.N.Subramaniyam(2012)7SCC738in
whichthisCourthaslaiddownthus:

18.ItissettledlegalpositionthattheeffectofSection52isnottorendertransferseffected
duringthependencyofasuitbyapartytothesuitvoid;butonlytorendersuchtransfers
subservienttotherightsofthepartiestosuchsuit,asmaybe,eventually,determinedinthesuit.
Inotherwords,thetransferremainsvalidsubject,ofcourse,totheresultofthesuit.The
pendentelitepurchaserwouldbeentitledtoorsufferthesamelegalrightsandobligationsofhis
vendorasmaybeeventuallydeterminedbythecourt.

12.Themerependencyofasuitdoesnotpreventoneofthepartiesfromdealingwiththe
propertyconstitutingthesubjectmatterofthesuit.Thesectiononlypostulatesaconditionthat
thealienationwillinnomanneraffecttherightsoftheotherpartyunderanydecreewhichmay
bepassedinthesuitunlessthepropertywasalienatedwiththepermissionofthecourt.(Sanjay
Vermav.ManikRoy,(2006)13SCC608,SCCp.612,para12.)

44.InThomsonPress(India)Ltd.v.NanakBuilders&Investors(P)Ltd.(2013)5SCC397,this
Courthaslaiddownthus:

53.Thereis,therefore,littleroomforanydoubtthatthetransferofthesuitpropertypendente
liteisnotvoidabinitioandthatthepurchaserofanysuchpropertytakesthebargainsubjectto
therightsoftheplaintiffinthependingsuit.Althoughtheabovedecisionsdonotdealwithafact
situationwherethesaledeedisexecutedinbreachofaninjunctionissuedbyacompetentcourt,
wedonotseeanyreasonwhythebreachofanysuchinjunctionshouldrenderthetransfer
whetherbywayofanabsolutesaleorotherwiseineffective.Thepartycommittingthebreach
maydoubtlessincurtheliabilitytobepunishedforthebreachcommittedbyitbutthesaleby
itselfmayremainvalidasbetweenthepartiestothetransactionsubjectonlytoanydirections
whichthecompetentcourtmayissueinthesuitagainstthevendor.

45.Inouropinionthesaledeedisnotvoidbutonlyvalidtotheextentoftheshareofvendorof
BalaMallaiahi.e.itisvalidtotheextentof14/104thsharewhichhasbeenfoundinthe
preliminarydecreeandaffirmedinthefinaldecree.Thesaledeedwassubjecttotheoutcomeof
thesuitwhichwastotheaforesaideffect.

(iv)Inre:Whatistheeffectofpreliminarydecreeforpartitionandtheextenttowhichit
isbinding:

46.Intheinstantcasepreliminarydecreewaspassedintheyear1970andtheshareswere
declaredtotheaforesaidextentoftherespectivepartiesthereinwhoweretheheirsofLate
NawabJung.HamidAliKhan,defendantNo.1,hadonly14/104thshareinthedisputedproperty.
Preliminarydecreedated24.11.1970hasattainedfinalitywhichwasquestionedinappealon
limitedextentintheHighCourtwhichhasattainedfinalitybydismissalofLPAon12.10.1977.
Thusthedeterminationofsharesasperpreliminarydecreehasattainedfinality,sharesofthe
partieshadbeencrystallisedineachandeveryproperty.Purchaserpendenteliteisboundbythe
preliminarydecreewithrespecttothesharessodeterminedanditcannotbereopenedand
whateverequitycouldhavebeenclaimedinthefinaldecreeproceedingstotheextentofvendor's
sharehasalreadybeenextendedtothepurchasers.
47.InVenkataReddyv.PethiReddyAIR1963SC992,ithasbeenlaiddownthatthe
preliminarydecreeforpartitionisfinal.Italsoembodiesthefinaldecisionofthecourt.The
questionoffinalityhasbeendiscussedthus:

6.Thenewprovisionmakesitclearthatthelawisandhasalwaysbeenthatuponthefather's
insolvencyhisdisposingpowerovertheinterestofhisundividedsonsinthejointfamily
propertyvestsintheOfficialReceiverandthatconsequentlythelatterhasarighttosellthat
interest.Theprovisionisthusdeclaratoryofthelawandwasintendedtoapplytoallcases
exceptthosecoveredbythetwoprovisos.Weareconcernedhereonlywiththefirstproviso.
ThisprovisoexceptsfromtheoperationoftheActatransactionsuchasasalebyanOfficial
ReceiverwhichhasbeenthesubjectofafinaldecisionbyacompetentCourt.Theshort
question,therefore,iswhetherthepreliminarydecreeforpartitionpassedinthiscasewhichwas
affirmedfinallyinsecondappealbytheHighCourtofMadrascanberegardedasafinal
decision.Thecompetenceofthecourtisnotinquestionhere.Whatis,however,contendedis
thatinapartitionsuittheonlydecisionwhichcanbesaidtobeafinaldecisionisthefinaldecree
passedinthecaseandthatsincefinaldecreeproceedingswerestillgoingonwhentheAmending
Actcameintoforcethefirstprovisowasnotavailabletotheappellants.Itiscontendedonbehalf
oftheappellantsthatsincetherightsofthepartiesareadjudicateduponbythecourtbeforea
preliminarydecreeispassedthatdecreemust,insofarasrightsadjudicateduponareconcerned,
bedeemedtobeafinaldecision.Theworddecisioneveninitspopularsensemeansa
concludedopinion(seeStroud'sJudicialDictionary3rded.Vol.I,p.743).Where,therefore,the
decisionisembodiedinthejudgmentwhichisfollowedbyadecreefinalitymustnaturallyattach
itselftoitinthesensethatitisnolongeropentoquestionbyeitherpartyexceptinanappeal,
revieworrevisionpetitionasprovidedforbylaw.TheHighCourthas,however,observed:

Themeredeclarationoftherightsoftheplaintiffbythepreliminarydecree,would,inour
opinionnotamounttoafinaldecisionforitiswellknownthatevenifapreliminarydecreeis
passedeitherinamortgagesuitorinapartitionsuit,therearecertaincontingenciesinwhich
suchapreliminarydecreecanbemodifiedoramendedandthereforewouldnotbecomefinal.

ItisnotclearfromthejudgmentwhatthecontingenciesreferredtobytheHighCourtarein
whichapreliminarydecreecanbemodifiedoramendedunlesswhatthelearnedJudgesmeant
wasmodifiedoramendedinappealorinrevieworinrevisionorinexceptionalcircumstances
byresortingtothepowersconferredbySections151and152oftheCodeofCivilProcedure.If
thatiswhattheHighCourtmeanttheneverydecreepassedbyaCourtincludingdecreespassed
incaseswhichdonotcontemplatemakingofapreliminarydecreeareliabletobemodifiedand
amended.Therefore,ifthereasongivenbytheHighCourtisaccepteditwouldmeanthatno
finalityattachestodecreeatall.Thatisnotthelaw.Adecisionissaidtobefinalwhen,sofaras
theCourtrenderingitisconcerned,itisunalterableexceptbyresorttosuchprovisionsofthe
CodeofCivilProcedureaspermititsreversal,modificationoramendment.Similarly,afinal
decisionwouldmeanadecisionwhichwouldoperateasresjudicatabetweenthepartiesifitis
notsoughttobemodifiedorreversedbypreferringanappealorarevisionorareview
applicationasispermittedbytheCode.Apreliminarydecreepassed,whetheritisinamortgage
suitorapartitionsuit,isnotatentativedecreebutmust,insofarasthemattersdealtwithbyit
areconcerned,beregardedasconclusive.Nodoubt,insuitswhichcontemplatethemakingof
twodecreesapreliminarydecreeandafinaldecreethedecreewhichwouldbeexecutable
wouldbethefinaldecree.Butthefinalityofadecreeoradecisiondoesnotnecessarilydepend
uponitsbeingexecutable.Thelegislatureinitswisdomhasthoughtthatsuitsofcertaintypes
shouldbedecidedinstagesandthoughthesuitinsuchcasescanberegardedasfullyand
completelydecidedonlyafterafinaldecreeismadethedecisionofthecourtarrivedatthe
earlierstagealsohasafinalityattachedtoit.ItwouldberelevanttorefertoS.97oftheCodeof
CivilProcedurewhichprovidesthatwhereapartyaggrievedbyapreliminarydecreedoesnot
appealfromit,heisprecludedfromdisputingitscorrectnessinanyappealwhichmaybe
preferredfromthefinaldecree.Thisprovisionthusclearlyindicatesthatastothematters
coveredbyit,apreliminarydecreeisregardedasembodyingthefinaldecisionofthecourt
passingthatdecree.

48.Moreover,itisprovidedinsection97oftheC.P.C.asunder:

97.Appealfromfinaldecreewherenoappealfrompreliminarydecree.Whereanyparty
aggrievedbyapreliminarydecreepassedafterthecommencementofthisCodedoesnotappeal
fromsuchdecree,heshallbeprecludedfromdisputingitscorrectnessinanyappealwhichmay
bepreferredfromthefinaldecree.

49.ItisapparentfromtheaforesaidSectionthatthematterswhichareconcludedbypreliminary
decreecannotbereagitatedinanappealagainstthefinaldecree.Noappealwaspreferredbythe
purchasersorbydefendantNo.1asagainstthepreliminarydecree.

(v)Inre:whetheritwasnecessarytofileasuitforcancellationofsaledeeddated
23.11.1959?
50.Inouropinion,whenthesaledeedhadbeenexecutedduringthependencyofsuitthe
purchaserpendenteliteisboundbytheoutcomeofthesuit.Theprovisionsofsection52prevent
multiplicityoftheproceedings.Itwasnotatallnecessarytofileasuitforcancellationofthesale
deedasthevendorhadnoauthoritytoselllandofothercosharers.Hehadrighttoalienatehis
ownshareonlywhichhehadinthepropertytotheextentof14/104th.Assuchtheright,titleand
interestofBalaMallaiahweresubjecttothependingsuitforpartitioninwhichapreliminary
decreewaspassedintheyear1970whichhadattainedfinalityinwhichvendorofBalaMallaiah,
defendantNo.1wasfoundtobehavingshareonlytotheextentof14/104th.Thepreliminary
decreewasnotbaseduponfraudorcollusion.Thesaledeedwasnotundertheauthorityofthe
courtandthependencyofthesuitundersection52commencedfromthedateofpresentationof
theplaintandcontinueduntilthesuitorproceedingsweredisposedofbyafinaldecree,andona
completesatisfactionofthedischargeofsuchdecree,anorderhadbeenobtained.Thelis
pendensoperatesduringexecutionalso.BalaMallaiah,hisL.Rs.andpurchasersfromthemare
boundbythedecisionofthecase.Theycannotcircumventthejurisdictionofthecourtand
wriggleoutofthedecree.Thetransferremainedvalidsubjecttotheresultofthesuitand
pendentelitepurchaserissubjecttothelegalrightsandobligationsofhisvendorasdecidedby
thecourt.OurconclusionisbuttressedbydecisioninK.N.AswathnarayanaSetty(dead)through
LRs.v.StateofKarnataka(2014)15SCC394,questionhasbeendiscussedbythisCourtthus:

11.Thedoctrineoflispendensisbasedonlegalmaximutlitependentenihilinnovetur(during
alitigationnothingnewshouldbeintroduced).ThisdoctrinestoodembodiedinSection52ofthe
TransferofPropertyAct,1882.Theprincipleoflispendensisinaccordancewiththeequity,
goodconscienceorjusticebecausetheyrestuponanequitableandjustfoundationthatitwillbe
impossibletobringanactionorsuittoasuccessfulterminationifalienationsarepermittedto
prevail.Atransfereependenteliteisboundbythedecreejustasmuchashewasapartytothe
suit.Alitigatingpartyisexemptedfromtakingnoticeofatitleacquiredduringthependencyof
thelitigation.However,itmustbeclearthatmerependencyofasuitdoesnotpreventoneofthe
partiesfromdealingwiththepropertyconstitutingthesubjectmatterofthesuit.Thelawsimply
postulatesaconditionthatthealienationwill,innomanner,affecttherightsoftheotherparty
underanydecreewhichmaybepassedinthesuitunlessthepropertywasalienatedwiththe
permissionofthecourt.Thetransfereecannotdeprivethesuccessfulplaintiffofthefruitsofthe
decreeifhepurchasedthepropertypendentelite.(VideK.AdiviNaiduv.E.DuruvasuluNaidu
(1995)6SCC150,VenkatraoAnantdeoJoshiv.Malatibai(2003)1SCC722,RajKumarv.
SardariLal(2004)2SCC601andSanjayVermav.ManikRoy(2006)13SCC608.)

(vi)Inre:whetherBalaMallaiah,hisheirsandpurchasershadperfectedtheirright,title
andinterestbyvirtueofadversepossession?
51.TheHighCourthasheldthattherewasnolispendens,andassuchitwasnecessaryto
questionthesaledeedandforwantofquestioningthesaledeed,theplaintiffshadperfectedtheir
titlebyvirtueofadversepossession.Thesameisclearlyaperversefinding.Firstly,intheearlier
civilsuitof1993submissionwasraisedwithrespecttoadversepossessionwhichwasnegatived.
Secondly,inouropinionaswehaveheldthatthesaledeedwashitbythedoctrineoflis
pendens,thepurchaserswereboundbytheresultofthesuit.Thustherewasnoquestionof
perfectingthetitlebyadversepossessionduringpendencyofsuit.Section52negatesthevery
pleaofadversepossession.Trialcourtandfirstappellatecourthaverightlyheldthattherewas
noquestionofadversepossession.TheHighCourthassimplywithoutanydiscussionheldthat
thetitlewasperfectedbyadversepossession.Merelyabaldstatementthattherewasadverse
possessionisnotenoughtosetupapleaofadversepossession.Ithastobeclearlysetoutfrom
whichdateitcommenced,andbecamehostilewhentherewasrepudiationofthetitle.Nosuch
pleahasbeenraised.Thereare3classicrequirementsofpleaofadversepossessioni.e.necvi,
necclam,necprecarioi.e.,peaceful,openandcontinuous.Nosuchpleadinghasbeenraised
muchlessthereisquestionofanyproofandmoreover,thispleawasnotavailabletoberaisedin
viewofdoctrineoflispendens.Possessionneverbecameadverseintheinstantcaseasthe
propertywaspurchasedsubjecttotheoutcomeofthelitigation.InKarnatakaBoardofWakfv.
GovernmentofIndia(2004)10SCC779itwasheldthatwhenlitigationwaspendingitcould
notbesaidthatthepossessionwaspeacefulorhostileinanyviewofthematter.Itwasheld
thus:

11.Intheeyeofthelaw,anownerwouldbedeemedtobeinpossessionofapropertysolong
asthereisnointrusion.Nonuseofthepropertybytheownerevenforalongtimewon'taffect
histitle.Butthepositionwillbealteredwhenanotherpersontakespossessionoftheproperty
andassertsarightoverit.Adversepossessionisahostilepossessionbyclearlyassertinghostile
titleindenialofthetitleofthetrueowner.Itisawellsettledprinciplethatapartyclaiming
adversepossessionmustprovethathispossessionisnecvi,necclam,necprecario,thatis,
peaceful,openandcontinuous.Thepossessionmustbeadequateincontinuity,inpublicityand
inextenttoshowthattheirpossessionisadversetothetrueowner.Itmuststartwithawrongful
dispositionoftherightfulownerandbeactual,visible,exclusive,hostileandcontinuedoverthe
statutoryperiod.(SeeS.M.Karimv.BibiSakinaAIR1964SC1254,Parsinniv.Sukhi(1993)4
SCC375andD.N.Venkatarayappav.StateofKarnataka(1997)7SCC567.)Physicalfactof
exclusivepossessionandtheanimuspossidenditoholdasownerinexclusiontotheactual
ownerarethemostimportantfactorsthataretobeaccountedincasesofthisnature.Pleaof
adversepossessionisnotapurequestionoflawbutablendedoneoffactandlaw.Therefore,a
personwhoclaimsadversepossessionshouldshow:(a)onwhatdatehecameintopossession,
(b)whatwasthenatureofhispossession,(c)whetherthefactumofpossessionwasknowntothe
otherparty,(d)howlonghispossessionhascontinued,and(e)hispossessionwasopenand
undisturbed.Apersonpleadingadversepossessionhasnoequitiesinhisfavour.Sinceheis
tryingtodefeattherightsofthetrueowner,itisforhimtoclearlypleadandestablishallfacts
necessarytoestablishhisadversepossession.[MaheshChandSharma(Dr.)v.RajKumari
Sharma(1996)8SCC128.]
12.Aplaintifffilingatitlesuitshouldbeveryclearabouttheoriginoftitleovertheproperty.He
mustspecificallypleadit.(SeeS.M.Karimv.BibiSakina(Supra).)InP.Periasamiv.P.
Periathambi(1995)6SCC523thisCourtruledthat:(SCCp.527,para5)

Wheneverthepleaofadversepossessionisprojected,inherentinthepleaisthatsomeoneelse
wastheowneroftheproperty.

Thepleasontitleandadversepossessionaremutuallyinconsistentandthelatterdoesnotbegin
tooperateuntiltheformerisrenounced.DealingwithMohanLalv.MirzaAbdulGaffar(1996)
1SCC639thatissimilartothecaseinhand,thisCourtheld:(SCCpp.64041,para4)

4.Asregardsthefirstplea,itisinconsistentwiththesecondplea.Havingcomeintopossession
undertheagreement,hemustdisclaimhisrightthereunderandpleadandproveassertionofhis
independenthostileadversepossessiontotheknowledgeofthetransferororhissuccessorintitle
orinterestandthatthelatterhadacquiescedtohisillegalpossessionduringtheentireperiodof
12yearsi.e.uptocompletingtheperiodhistitlebyprescriptionnecvi,necclam,necprecario.
Sincetheappellant'sclaimisfoundedonSection53A,itgoeswithoutsayingthatheadmitsby
implicationthathecameintopossessionoflandlawfullyundertheagreementandcontinuedto
remaininpossessiontilldateofthesuit.Therebythepleaofadversepossessionisnotavailable
totheappellant.

52.Inouropinion,theHighCourthaserredinlawinholdingthattheplaintiffsperfectedtheir
titlebyvirtueofadversepossession.Thefindingisperverseandhasnofoundationalbasis.

(vii)Inre:whetherundertheMuslimLaw,defendantNo.1beingacosharercouldhave
alienatedtheshareofothercosharersinthedisputedproperty?

53.Intheinstantcase,thepropertywasancestralpropertyofLateNawabJung.Itisnotin
disputethatNawabJungdiedintestate.ThelegalheirsofLateNawabJungsucceededtothe
estateastenantsincommonandnotasjointtenants.Theheirssucceededtotheestateinspecific
shares.InOutlinesofMuhammadanLawbyAsafA.A.Fyzee,4thEdn,ithasbeenobservedthat
generalprinciplesofIslamicjurisprudencedonotcontemplateadministration,butamere
distributionoftheestateaspertheprincipleslaiddowninSirajiyyah.AspertheSunnilaw,a
testatorcanleavealegacytoanheironlytotheextentof1/3rdofestateandnotexceedingthat.
Afterdeathofapersonthefirststepistomakepaymentoffuneralexpenses,debtsandlegacies.
Thereafter,distributionofestateamonglegalheirs,firstlytosharers,intheabsencethereof,to
residuaries,andincaseofabsenceofbothtodistantkindred.AsperMulla,distributiontakes
placeinthefollowingmanner:

61.ClassesofheirsTherearethreeclassesofheirs,namely,(1)Sharers,(2)Residuaries,and
(3)DistantKindred:

(1)Sharersarethosewhoareentitledtoaprescribedshareoftheinheritance;

(2)Residuariesarethosewhotakenoprescribedshare,butsucceedtotheresidueafterthe
claimsofthesharersaresatisfied;

(3)DistantKindredareallthoserelationsbybloodwhoareneitherSharersnorResiduaries.

Sharerstakeinthefollowingmanner:

63.SharersAfterpaymentoffuneralexpenses,debts,andlegacies,thefirststepinthe
distributionoftheestate,ofadeceasedMahomedanistoascertainwhichofthesurviving
relationsbelongtotheclassofsharers,andwhichagainoftheseareentitledtoashareofthe
inheritance,and,afterthisisdone,toproceedtoassigntheirrespectivesharestosuchofthe
sharersasare,underthecircumstancesofthecase,entitledtosucceedtoashare.Thefirst
columnintheaccompanyingtable(p.66A)containsalistofSharers;thesecondcolumn
specifiesthenormalshareofeachsharer;thethirdcolumnspecifiestheconditionswhich
determinetherightofeachsharertoashare,andthefourthcolumnsetsoutthesharesasvaried
byspecialcircumstances.

54.Residuariestakeiftherearenosharersoriftherearesharers,aftersatisfyingtheirclaims.As
perMulla,theywilltakeinthefollowingmanner:
65.ResiduariesIftherearenoSharers,orifthereareSharers,butthereisaresidueleftafter
satisfyingtheirclaims,thewholeinheritanceortheresidue,asthecasemaybe,devolvesupon
Residuariesintheordersetforthintheannexedtable(p.74A).

TheResiduariesorAgnaticheirsweretheprincipalheirsbeforeIslam;theycontinuetoremain
theprincipalheirsinSunnilaw.Theirpremierpositionis,inIslam,alwayssubjecttotheclaims
ofnearrelationsmentionedastheKoranicheirs.Firsttheyaresatisfiedbygivingthemtheir
Koranicshares.Residuariesaretherelationswhoserightswerealsorecognizedbytriballawsin
SaudiArabiabeforeIslam.

TherightsofresiduariesarerecognizedbytheHolyQuran(byimplication)andbythetraditions
oftheprophet(PBUH)inveryspecificterms.

TheHolyQurandeclares:

fromwhatisleftbyparentsandnearkindred,thereisashareformenandashareforwoman,
whetherthepropertybesmallorlargeadeterminateshare.

To(benefit)everyone,wehaveappointedsharesandheirstopropertyleftbyparentsandnear
relatives

Allahdirectsyouconcerningyourchildren(theirinheritance),tothemaleaportionequalto
thatoftwofemales..

Theyasktheeforalegaldecision.Say:Allahdirects(thus)aboutthosewholeaveno
descendantsorascendantsasheir.Ifitisamanthatdies,leavingasisterbutnochild,sheshall
havehalftheinheritance.If(suchadeceasedwas)awomanwholeftnochild,herbrothertakes
herinheritanceIftheyarebrothersandsisters,(theyshare),themalehavingtwicetheshareof
thefemale.
Thefirsttwoversesareclearproofthatbloodrelationsareentitledtoinherit.Bloodrelations
definitelyincluderesiduaries(themaleagnates).[see,MohammadMustafaAliKhan,Islamic
LawofInheritance,1stedition.]

55.Thedistantkindredisdealtwithinsection67inMulla'sPrinciplesofMahomedanLaw
thus:

67.DistantKindred(1)IftherebenosharesorResiduaries,theinheritanceisdividedamongst
DistantKindred.

(2)Iftheonlysharerbeahusbandorwife,andtherebenorelationbelongingtotheclassof
Residuaries,thehusbandorwifewilltakehisorherfullshare,andtheremainderoftheestate
willbedividedamongDistantKindred.

56.IncidentsoftenancyincommonhavebeencitedfromHalsbury'sLawsofEngland,5thEdn.,
vol.87inwhichnatureofsuchtenancyhasbeendiscussedbefore1925inpara220.Inpara221
natureofsuchtenancysince1925hasbeendiscussed.Ithasbeenobservedthattenantsin
commonhaveseveralinterests,wherejointtenants,whetheratlaworinequity,haveone
interest.Thetenantsincommonmaybeentitledtoequitablesharesinthelandinunequalshares
andforinterestswhichmaybeunequalinduration;differentshareswouldbesubjecttodifferent
limitationsandthelimitationsmayincludeentailedinterests.Nonewentailedinterestscanbe
createdeitherinrealorpersonalproperty,butthisdoesnotaffectanyentailedinterestscreated
before1.1.1997consideringtheprovisionsoftheTrustsofLandandAppointmentofTrustees
Act,1996asapplicableintheareaforwhichithasbeenenacted.Thereisnorightof
survivorshipandonthedeathofatenantincommon,hissharepassesaccordingtoitsown
limitation.Inpara224themodesofeffectingpartitionoftenanciesincommonhavebeendealt
withingeneralandthepositionbefore1925andsubsequenttheretohasbeentakeninto
considerationconsideringtheenactmentswhichhavebeenmadeapplicablefromtimetotime.

57.Thus,itisapparentthattheincidentsofsuchjointtenancyandtenantsincommonarefurther
subjecttothelawbywhichpartiesaregovernedandinthatcontext,wehavetoexamineacase.
Thereisnodisputewiththegeneralprinciplesofjointtenancyandtenantsincommonbutthe
samewouldalsodependuponintheirapplicationwithrespecttothelawbywhichtheparties
andthelisinquestionaregoverned.InacasebelongingtoMuslims,incidentsofMuslimLaw,
theirlawofinheritancehastobeconsidered,inparticularwithrespecttorightsoftenantsin
common.RightofdispositionbyatestamentisalsodifferentintheMuslimlaw.Therecannotbe
testamentarydispositionformorethan1/3rdofthepropertyheldbytestator.Thepowerof
alienationinMuslimlawisdifferentfromHindulaw.InHindulaw,thereisdifferencein
DayabhagaandMitakshraschooloflaw.MuslimlawmaybeakininsomerespecttoDayabhaga
lawbutnotwithMitaksharaLaw.However,inMitakshraLawinBombaySchoolandinBanaras
School,powerofalenationisdifferent.Acoparcenercannotalienatewithoutconsentofother
coparcenersinBanarasSchoolofMitaksharaLaw.InBombaySchoolofMitaksharaLaw,aco
parcenercanalienateforvaluehisundividedinterestorhiscoparcenerypropertywithout
consentofothercoparceners.HoweverintheareawhichisgovernedbytheBanarasSchoolof
MitaksharaLaw,saleofhisundividedshareinacoparcenerypropertywithoutconsentofother
coparcenersisvoidableattheinstanceofnonalienatingcoparcener.

58.AFullBenchoftheM.P.HighCourtinRamdayalv.ManaklalAIR1973MP222hasmade
certainobservationswithrespecttoapplicabilityofMitaksharalawasadministeredinBombay,
MadrasandM.P.Acoparcenermaysell,mortgageorotherwisealienateforvaluehisundivided
interestincoparcenerypropertywithouttheconsentofothercoparceners.Decisionin
Ramdayal'scase(supra)hasbeenexplainedbyadecisionofanotherFullBenchoftheM.P.
HighCourtinDiwanSinghv.BhaiyaLalAIR1997MP210.IthasbeenheldthatinMadhya
Bharat,VindhyaPradeshetc.ofMadhyaPradesh,BanarasSchoolofHinduLawapplies.Thus
theapplicabilityofthelawattheplaceinquestionandcertaincustomswhichwouldbe
prevailingincertainareasarealsorelevant.AsincertainpartsofA.P.orelsewheretheremaybe
differentcustomsprevailinginMuslimswhicharetobetakenintoconsiderationwhiledeciding
amatter.InHalsburyalsodistinctionhasbeenmadebetweenthelawwhichwasapplicable
before1925andthelawwhichisapplicableafter1925andthediscussionoflawiswithrespect
tovariousActsonthebasisofwhichthedecisionshavebeenreferredherein.

59.Whenweconsidertheincidentsofdispositionofpropertyunderdifferentlaws,wehaveto
considerthepersonallawandthentoapplythegeneralprinciplesoftenancylawtothe
permissiblenonconflictzonetopersonallawwhichholdsthefieldforthepartiestoarriveata
decision.ThePrivyCouncilinthecaseofImambandiv.Mutsaddi(1918)L.R.45I.A.73
consideringthedistinctionbetweenthelawwhichisapplicabletoMohammedans,hasheldthat
thereisasharpdistinctionwhichhastobedrawnwithotherlawswithrespecttoitsspecial
nature.TheCourtcautionedtoapplytheforeigndecisionswhichareonconsiderationsand
conditionstotallydifferingfromthoseapplicabletoorprevailinginIndia.ThePrivyCouncilhas
observedthus:

45.TheirLordshipscannothelpdeprecatingthepracticewhichseemstobegrowinginsomeof
theIndianCourtsofreferringlargelytoforeigndecisions.Howeverusefulinthescientificstudy
ofcomparativejurisprudence,referencetojudgmentsofforeignCourts,towhichIndian
practitionerscannotbeexpectedtohaveaccess,basedoftenonconsiderationsandconditions
totallydifferingfromthoseapplicabletoorprevailinginIndia,isonlylikelytoconfusethe
administrationofjustice.

60.Thus,inouropinion,courtshavetobecarefultoapplythedecisionofMuslimlawtoacase
relatingtoHindulawandtheforeigndecisionsandviceversa.Therecannotbeuniversal
applicationofprinciplesoflawonaparticularsubject.Speciallawsbywhichpartiesare
governedarealsotobetakenintoconsiderationsoastoarriveatajustconclusion.

61.Keepinginviewaforesaidprincipleweproceedtoconsiderthequestionfurther.InSyed
ShahGhulamGhouseMohiuddinv.SyedShahAhmedMohiuddinKamisulQuadri(died)byl.rs.
(1971)1SCC597,thisCourthaslaiddownthatMuslimheirsaretenantsincommonandthey
succeedtotheirdefinitefractionofeverypartofestateofthedeceased.Thesharesoftheheirs
aredefiniteandknownbeforeactualpartition.Therefore,onpartitionofthepropertiesthereis
divisionbymetesandboundsinaccordancewithspecificsharesofeachsharerwhichhave
alreadybeendeterminedbylaw.ThisCourthasobservedthus:

20.Thecauseofactionforpartitionofpropertiesissaidtobeaperpetuallyrecurringone
(SeeMonsharamChakravartyv.GaneshChandraChakravarty,17CWN521.InMohammedan
lawthedoctrineofpartialpartitionisnotapplicablebecausetheheirsaretenantsincommon
andtheheirsofthedeceasedMuslimsucceedtothedefinitefractionofeverypartofhisestate.
ThesharesofheirsunderMohammedanlawaredefiniteandknownbeforeactualpartition.
ThereforeonpartitionofpropertiesbelongingtoadeceasedMuslimthereisdivisionbymetes
andboundsinaccordancewiththespecificshareofeachheirbeingalreadydeterminedbythe
law.

62.InP.N.VeetilNarayaniv.PathummaBeevi(1990)4SCC672,itwasreiteratedthatsince
heirssucceedtotheestateastenantsincommon,thus,theliabilityofheirsofaMuslimdying
intestateorthatofthedeceasedistotheextentofhisshareofdebtproportionatetohisshareof
estate.Ifthatisproportionatetoshareofthedeceasedasinheritanceisastenantsincommon
andasindependentdebtors,notcodebtorsorjointdebtors.Cosharerscanhardlybeclassified
asjointcontractors,partners,executorsormortgagees.Theyareindependentdebtorsandthe
debthavingbeensplitbyoperationoflaw.ThisCourthaslaiddownthus:
10.TheseobservationsinJafriBegamcaseILR(1885)7All822areprimerootsofthetheory
astothedivisibilityofthedebtinthehandsofheirsofaMuslimintestate.Soitwouldberightto
treatitsettledthatMuslimheirsareindependentownersoftheirspecificsharessimultaneously
intheestateanddebtsofthedeceased,theirliabilityfixedunderthepersonallawproportionate
totheextentoftheirshares.Inthisstateoflawitwouldbeunnecessarytorefertoother
decisionsofvariousHighCourtstouchingthesubject.Soweproceedonthefootingthatas
manyheirsasaredefendingthiscause,therearedebtsinthatnumber.

14.TheheirsofaMuslimdyingintestateonwhomfallstheliabilitytodischargethedebt,
proportionatetotheirrespectivesharesintheestatedevolved,canhardlybeclassifiedasjoint
contractors,partners,executorsormortgagees.Asheldabovetheyarebythemselves
independentdebtors;thedebthavingbeensplitbyoperationoflaw.Intersetheyhavenojural
relationshipascodebtorsorjointdebtorssoastofallwithintheshadowofcontractors,partners,
executorsormortgageesorinaclassakintothem.Theysucceedtotheestateastenantsin
commoninspecificshares.Evenasignedwrittenacknowledgmentbytheprincipalorthrough
hisagentwouldbindtheprincipalandnotanyoneelsestandinginjuralrelationshipwiththe
principalinaccordancewithSection20(2).TheMuslimheirsintersehavenosuchrelationship.
Inthisviewofthematter,wetaketheviewthattheHighCourtwasrightinconfiningthe
acknowledgmentofthedebtsonlytorespondent2andnotextendingtheacknowledgmenttothe
othercoheirsfortheirindependentposition.

16.Inthecontext,ifthedebtisoneandindivisible,paymentbyonewillinterruptlimitation
againstallthedebtorsunlesstheycomewithintheexceptionlaiddowninSection20(2)which
hasbeentakennoteofearlier.Andifthedebtissusceptibleofdivisionandthoughseemingly
oneconsistsreallyofseveraldistinctdebtseachoneofwhichispayablebyoneoftheobligors
separatelyandnotbytherest,Section20keepsalivehispartofthedebtwhichhasgottobe
dischargedbythepersonwhohasmadepaymentofinterest.Itcannotaffectseparatesharesof
theotherdebtorsunlessontheprincipal(sicprinciple)ofagency,expressorimplied,the
paymentcanbesaidtobeapaymentontheirbehalfalso.SeeinthisconnectionAbheswari
Dasyav.BaburaliShaikhAIR1937Cal191.Thepaymentmadeonaccountofdebtby
defendantrespondent2asanindependentdebtor,andnotasanagent,expressorimplied,on
behalfofothercoheirscouldhardly,inthefactsestablished,herebesaidtobeapaymenton
behalfofallsoastoextendperiodoflimitationasagainstall.Wearethusoftheconsidered
viewthattheHighCourtwasrightinconfiningtheextensionoflimitationonpaymentofapart
ofdebtonlyagainstdefendantrespondent2,proportionatetohisshareoftheestatedevolvedon
himwhichwasonefourth.WearefurtheroftheviewthattheHighCourtwasrightinholding
thesuitagainstothercoheirstobebarredbylimitationrelatingtotheirsharesofthedebt.
63.ThisCourthasalsolaiddownthatinthatcasepaymentmadeonaccountofdebtby
defendantrespondent2asanindependentdebtor,andnotasanagent,expressorimplied,on
behalfofothercoheirs,inthefactsestablished,couldnotbesaidtobeapaymentonbehalfof
all.

64.ThisCourtagaininKasambhaiSheikhv.AbdullaKasambhaiSheikh(2004)13SCC385has
heldthatsuccessioninMohammedanLawisinspecificsharesastenantsincommon.

65.ItwasobservedinRamAwalambv.JataShankarAIR1969All.526thatajointtenancy
connotesunityoftitle,possession,interestandcommencementoftitle;intenancyincommon
theremaybeunityofpossessionandcommencementoftitlebuttheothertwofeaturesasto
unityoftitleandinterestaremissing.

66.InMansabAliKhanv.Mt.NabiunnisaAIR1934All702,asuitwasfiledbytheplaintiffs
whohadacquiredrightsin12/24sihamsinthepropertyindispute.Theyclaimedpossession
overtheshareofthewholepropertyonthegroundthatoneofthedefendantrespondents,Mt.
Nabiunnissa,hadsoldcertainpropertytothedefendantrespondentsNos.2and3.Therewasan
agreementthatMt.Nabiunnisashouldremaininpossessionontheconditionthatshebecame
liabletopayallthedebtsduefromthedeceased.Thoughtheagreementwasnotproved,thetrial
courtfoundthatcertaindebtswerepaidbyMt.Nabiunnisa.Itwasheldthatoneoftheheirsofa
deceasedMohamedanwasperfectlyentitledtoalienatehisshareofthepropertywithoutgetting
itpartitionedprovidedhehadpaidtheproportionateshareofdebtonassessmentofproperty.

67.MuhammadanLawdoesnotrecognizetherightofanyoneoftheshareholdersbeingtenants
incommon,foractingonbehalfofcoheirsaslaiddowninAbdulMajeethKhanSahibv.C.
KrishnamachariarAIR1918Mad1049(FB).Ithasbeenlaiddownthatoneheirhasno
authorityinlawtodealwiththeshareofhiscoheirs.Relevantportionisextractedhereunder:

Thisisabsolutelyclearauthorityinproofofthepositionthatoneheirhasnoauthority,inlaw,
todealwiththesharesofhiscoheirs.Infaceofit,itisnotnecessarytorefertootheroriginal
textbooks.Itisstated,however,inPathummabiv.VittilUmmachabiI.L.R.26Mad.734that,
ifthecreditorofthedeceasedcanseekhisreliefagainstoneofseveralcoheirsinacasewhere
alltheeffectsofthedeceasedareinthehandsofthatheir,itcanmakenodifferencewhetherthe
heirmeetsthedemandbyabonafidevoluntarysale,orthepropertyisbroughttosalein
executionofadecreeobtainedagainsthim.TothesameeffectisadecisionoftheAllahabad
HighCourtinHasanAliv.MedhiHusainI.L.R.1All.533.ThestatementinPathummabiv.
VittilUmmachabiI.L.R.(supra)waspurelybywayofobiterdictumandwithallrespecttothe
learnedJudges,theyfailedtobearinmindthat,theprovisionoftheMuhammadanLaw,thata
decreeagainstoneheirinpossessionofalltheeffectsofthedeceased,isbindingonallif
obtainedaftercontest,ispartoftheprocessuallawofthatsystemandisnotbasedontheground
thatasingleheir,ifhehappenstobeinpossessionoftheestateofthedeceased,representsthe
restoftheheirsforthepurposesofadministrationgenerally.Thegroundonwhichadecree
againstoneoftheheirs,insuchcircumstances,istreatedasresjudicatais,asstatedinthebooks,
thatthedecreeinsuchcasesis,inlaw,againstthedeceasedandnotagainsttheparticularheir
whoismadedefendantinthesuit.

xxxxxxxxx

Sofarasvoluntaryalienationsareconcerned,whichaloneformthesubjectmatterofreference,
theMuhammadanLawisclearthatoneoftheheirsofadeceasedpersonisnotcompetentto
bindtheotherheirsbyhisacts,

Spencer,J.IagreewiththejudgmentofMr.JusticeAbdurRahimjustnowpronounced.

SrinivasaAiyangar,J.Iagree.Intheabsenceofanyrightinoneoftheheirstorepresentthe
coheirs,oneofseveralcoheirscanonlydealwithhisorherinterestintheancestor'sproperty
inheritedbythem.MylearnedbrotherhasshownthatthereisnothingintheMuhammadanLaw
givingsucharighttooneofthecoheirswhomayhappentobeinactualpossessionofthewhole
oftheancestor'sestate;suchpossession,itmustberemembered,ispresumablyonbehalfofall
thecoheirs.Heisnotconstitutedtherepresentativeofthedeceasedandcannotadministerhis
propertyevenforthelimitedpurposeofpayingoffhisdebts.InKhiarajmalv.DaimL.R.,32
Ind.App.,23,LordDaveyreferringtoasalebyoneoftheheirsofaMuhammadanfor
dischargingthedebtduebytheancestorsaidprimafaciehisconveyancewouldpassonlyhis
share,See.p.37.Representationinasuitmayconceivablystandonadifferentfootingforas
statedbytheirLordshipsinthesamejudgmentatpage35,TheIndianCourtshaveexerciseda
widediscretioninallowingtheestateofadeceaseddebtortoberepresentedbyonememberof
thefamily,andinrefusingtodisturbjudicialsalesonthemeregroundthatsomemembersofthe
family,whowereminors,werenotmadepartiestotheproceedings,ifitappearsthattherewasa
debtjustlyduefromthedeceased,andnoprejudiceisshowntotheabsentminors.Buttheseare
usuallycaseswherethepersonnamedasdefendantisdefactomanagerofaHindufamily
property,orhastheassetsoutofwhichthedecreeistobesatisfiedunderhiscontrol;andthey
appliedthisprincipleinthatverycasetotheestateofNabibaksh.However,thatisnotthe
questionhere.

68.InMohammadAfzalKhan,Hajiv.AbdulRahman,MalikAIR1932PC235,thePrivy
Councilhasheldthatincaseoneoftwoormorecosharershadmortgagedanundividedshare,
themortgageetakesthesecuritysubjecttorightsofothercosharers,andthepartitionifeffected,
themortgagedpropertiesareallottedtotheothercosharers,theytakethosepropertiesinthe
absenceoffraud,freefromthemortgageandthemortgageecanproceedonlyagainstthe
propertiesallottedtothemortgagorinsubstitutionofhisundividedshare.Theprinciplethat
emanatesfromtheaforesaiddecisionisthatcosharercanbindhispropertyandcannotcreate
chargeonthepropertyofothercosharers.ThePrivyCouncilhadrelieduponthedecisioninthe
caseofByjnathLallv.RamoodeenChowdry(1874)LR1Ind.App.106,therelevantportionof
MohammadAfzalKhan,Haji(supra)isextractedhereunder:

Asregardsthefirstpoint,theirLordshipsareofopinionthatwhereoneoftwoormoreco
sharersmortgageshisundividedshareinsomeofthepropertiesheldjointlybythem,the
mortgageetakesthesecuritysubjecttotherightoftheothercosharerstoenforceapartitionand
therebytoconvertwhatwasanundividedshareofthewholeintoadefinedportionheldin
severalty.Ifthemortgage,therefore,isfollowedbyapartitionandthemortgagedpropertiesare
allottedtotheothercosharers,theytakethoseproperties,intheabsenceoffraud,freefromthe
mortgage,andthemortgageecanproceedonlyagainstthepropertiesallottedtothemortgagorin
substitutionofhisundividedshare.ThiswastheviewtakenbytheBoardinByjnathLallv.
RamoodeenChowdry(1874)LR1Ind.App.106.Inthatcasethepartitionwasmadebythe
CollectorunderRegulationXIXof1814(Bengal),andthemortgageewasseekingtoenforcehis
remedynotagainstthepropertiesmortgagedtohim,butagainstthepropertieswhichhadbeen
allottedtothemortgagorinlieuofhisundividedshare;buttheBoardheldthatnotonlyhehada
righttodoso,butthatitwasinthecircumstancesofthecasehissoleright,andthathecouldnot
successfullyhavesoughttochargeanyotherparceloftheestateinthehandsofanyofthe
formercosharers.TheirLordshipsthinkthattheprincipleenunciatedinthatcaseappliesequally
toapartitionbyarbitrationsuchastheoneinthepresentcase.TheirLordshipsarethereforeof
opinionthattheappellantisnotentitledtoenforcehischargeagainstthepropertiesallottedto
thefirstandsecondrespondents.Thethirdrespondent(themortgagor)hasnotappearedbefore
theirLordships,andtheirLordshipsexpressnoopinionastoanyotherrightswhichtheappellant
mayhaveinrespectofhismortgage.

69.ItwassubmittedonbehalfoftheappellantsthatinMohammedanlawthedoctrineofpartial
partitionisnotapplicablebecausetheheirsaretenantsincommon.Reliancehasbeenplaced
uponthedecisionofthisCourtinSyedShahGhulamGhouseMohiuddinv.SyedShahAhmed
MohiuddinKamisul(supra).InS.M.A.Samadv.ShahidHussainAIR1963Patna375,thePatna
HighCourtreferringtothevariousdecisionsindicatedthatitwouldbeinexpedienttoallowsuits
forpartitionofaportionoftheproperties,becauseitwouldleadtoamultiplicityofsuits.Itis
merelyaruleofprocedurallaw.Mohammedansareneverjointinestatebutonlytenantsin
common.Ithasbeenobservedthattherulewithrespecttothepartialpartitionisnotsorigid,it
canbeallowedincertaincircumstances.ReliancehasalsobeenplacedonadecisionoftheHigh
CourtofMadhyaPradeshinAbdulKarimv.HafijMohammad(1989)MPLJ178,inwhichit
hadbeenheldthatsuitforpartialpartitionwasmaintainable.Referencehasalsobeenmadeto
thecaseofA.J.Pintov.Smt.SahebbiKomMuktumSaheb(Dead)byLRs(1972)4SCC238,
whereinthisCourthasleftopenthequestionwhetherpartialpartitionispossibleunderMuslim
Lawandnoopinionwasexpressed.Theaforesaiddecisionastothepartialpartitionhadbeen
citedtoemphasizethatwhenMuslimsinheritinspecificshare,theirshareisdetermined.
However,thequestionofpartialpartitionisnotinvolvedintheinstantcase,assuch,weneednot
gointotheaforesaidquestionastothepermissibilityofthepartialpartition,asthesuitinthe
instantcasewasfiledforpartitionoftheentirematrukaproperty.

70.AFullBenchdecisionoftheHighCourtofSindinVaziraliasDinov.DwarkamalAIR
1922Sind41hasalsobeenreferredto,whereinreferringtothecaseofMangaldasv.Abdul
Razak(1916)16BombayL.R.224,ithasbeenobservedthatthenotionsofjointfamily,joint
familypropertyandjointfamilybusinessareutterlyunknowntoMohammedanLaw.

71.AdecisioninJanMahomedv.DattuJaffer(1913)38Bombay449hasalsobeenreferredto
andithasbeenheldthatMohammedansundertheirownlawareneverjointinestatewhether
theylivetogetherorwhethertheydonot.OndeathofaMuslimhisheirsatoncebecomevested
withthesharestowhichtheIslamicLawentitlesthem.Theyhavenottowaituntiltheproperty
isdividedbymetesandbounds.Ithasalsobeenobservedthatsometimeanerroriscausedby
applicationofHindulawtothecaseofMohammedanlaw.Ithasalsobeenfurtherobservedthat
aMohammedanheirisnotacoparcener.Hehasnotmerelyarighttoadefinedandimmediate
shareineachportionoftheestatebutifanyportionoftheestateisinanycasemarkedoffand
dividedfromtherestoftheestate,hehasarighttoanimmediateshareinthatportion.

72.ReliancehasalsobeenplaceduponthedecisioninGhumanmalLokumalv.FaizMuhammad
HajiKhanAIR1948Sind83inwhichithasbeenobservedthus:

15.Itmaybeconcededthatthequestionofadjustmentofequitiesbetweenthevendorand
vendeeuponasuitbyaMuslimcosharerforpartitionoftheentirepropertyheldinco
ownershipmightproperlyarise,butwecannotacceptthepositionthat,whileaMuslimcosharer
electstosueforpartitionofsomeofthepropertiesonlyheldincoownership,avendeecan
compelhimtosueforageneralpartition,forthepurposeofadjustingequitiesbetweentheco
sharervendorandhimself.IfMr.Kimatrai'scontentionweretoprevail,itwouldputfettersupon
whatthisCourtinsecondAppealNo.64of1942hasheldtobeanunfetteredrightofaMuslim
cosharertoclaimpartitionofsomeofthepropertiesonlyheldincoownership,whileretaining
hiscoownershipintheremainingproperties.

16.If,then,avendeecannotrequireaMuslimcosharertosueforageneralpartition,muchless
canheinstituteasuitforthesolepurposeofadjustingequitiesbetweenhimselfandhisMuslim
cosharervendorinregardtopropertywhichhasnotbeenalienatedtohim,asissoughttobe
doneinthecasebeforeus.

73.IthasbeenobservedthatavendeecannotcompelaMuslimtosueforageneralpartitionfor
thepurposeofadjustingequitiesbetweenthecosharervendorandhimself.Thelogicbehind
thisisthatspecificshareisinheritedbyacosharerinaspecificproperty.

74.RightofpreemptionunderMohammedanLawhasbeenreliedupontoinvalidatethesaleto
strangereventotheextentofvendor'sshare.AFullBenchoftheAllahabadHighCourtin
Inayatullahv.GobindDayal(1885)ILR7All775hasobservedthatrightofpreemptionis
closelyconnectedwiththeMohammedanlawofinheritance.Thefollowingistheobservation
madewithrespecttotherightofpreemptionintheaforesaiddecision:

7.Uponthepresentoccasionitisunnecessarytoconsiderwhethergiftcanproperlybe
describedasareligioususageorinstitutionwithinthemeaningofSection24.Iamhere
concernedonlywiththequestionwhetherpreemptioncanbesodescribed.Myownopinionis
thatitcan,andalthoughIcannotaddmuchtothereasonsgivenbySPANKIB,J.,Imayobserve
thatpreemptioniscloselyconnectedwiththeMuhammadanLawofinheritance.Thatlawwas
foundedbytheProphetuponrepublicanprinciples,atatimewhenthemoderndemocratic
conceptionofequalityanddivisionofpropertywasunknowneveninthemostadvanced
countriesofEurope.Itprovidesthat,uponthedeathofanowner,hispropertyistobedivided
intonumerousfractions,accordingtoextremelyrigidrules,sorigidastopracticallyexcludeall
poweroftestamentarydisposition,andtopreventanydiversionofthepropertymadeevenwith
theconsentoftheheirs,unlessthatconsentisgivenaftertheowner'sdeath,whenthereasonis,
notthatthetestatorhadpowertodefeatthelawofinheritance,butthattheheirs,havingbecome
ownersoftheproperty,coulddealwithitastheyliked,andcouldthereforeratifytheactoftheir
ancestor.NoMuhammadanisallowedtomakeawillinfavourofanyofhisheirs,andabequest
toastrangerisallowedonlytotheextentofonethirdoftheproperty.Underthese
circumstances,toallowtheMuhammadanLawofinheritance,andtodisallowtheMuhammadan
Lawofpreemption,wouldbetocarryoutthelawinanimperfectmanner;forthelatterisin
realitythepropercomplementoftheformer,andonedepartmentofthelawcannotbe
administeredwithouttakingcognizanceoftheother

75.IthasalsobeenobservedthatundertheMohammedanlaw,theruleofpreemptionproceeds
uponaprincipleanalogoustothemaximsicuteretuoutalienumnonleadas.Therightof
preemptionisbaseduponthefactthattherecanbelargenumberofcosharers,thepreference
hastobegiventopreemptorasarightofsubstitution,butnotasarepurchaseinMohammedan
lawtocutshortthelitigation.

76.Forthepurposeofpreemption,reliancehasalsobeenplacedonthedecisioninZamir
Ahmadv.S.HaidarNazarAIR1952All541,inwhichithasbeenobservedthatwherethereisa
customrelatingtopreemption,theruleofMohammedanlawofpreemptionisnottobeapplied
evenonthegroundofequityandgoodconscience.InviewoftheentryinWajibularzthecustom
iscompletebyitselfandcanbeenforced.Theplaintiffbeingarelativeandacosharer,
accordingly,hadapreferentialrightofpreemptionasagainstthevendeesandwasentitledto
preempt.

77.ThedecisioninNagammalv.Nanjammal(1970)1MLJ358hasalsobeenreferredto,
whereinithasbeenobservedthatthepreferentialrighttoacquiretheshareofacoheirwho
proposestotransferhisinterestinthepropertyorbusinessofthepropositusislimitedtocasesof
simultaneoussuccessionanddevolutionofpropertyupontwoormoreheirsbelongingtoClassI.
Obviously,thesectionhasbeenaimedatreducingtosomeextentatleasttheinconvenient
effectsofsimultaneoussuccessionbyseveralpersonsatoneandthesametimeasmembersof
ClassIleadingtofragmentationandparcellingup,ofevensmallholdingsofproperty.Toa
degreethesectionenablesacoheirtoretainthepropertyinthefamilyandavoidthe
introductionofastrangerintheenjoymentoffamilypropertyifhesodesired.Relyingupon
Inayatullah(supra),ithasbeenobservedthatitisnotlawfulforanyonetosellhisownsharetill
hehasinformedhiscosharerwhomaytakeorleaveitashewishes;andifhehassoldwithout
suchinformation,thecosharerhasapreferentialrighttotheshare.Ithasalsobeenobservedthat
theexistenceofrightofpreemptionispatentandtheburdenisonthepurchasertoestablishthat
othercoheirsdeclareorwaivetheirpreferentialrightwhenoccasionarose.Itisnotpretended
thatpurchasermadeanyreferencetononalienatingcoheirsbeforehispurchase.Itfollowsthat
plaintiffshavenotlosttheirpreferentialrightofpurchasebysaleandareentitledtohave
propertyconveyedtothem.
78.Onthebasisoftheaforesaiddecisionswithrespecttothepreferentialrightitissoughttobe
contendedonbehalfoftheappellantsthatthereisnoequityinfavourofthepurchaser,butunder
Muslimlawcoheirshavetherightofpreferentialpurchaseandinthiscaseevenitisnot
pretendedbythepurchaserthathehadofferedtothecoheirsbeforepurchasingthesamevide
saledeeddated23.11.1959.Wedeclinetoacceptthesubmissionasthepropertyinquestionis
capableofdivisionanditisnotasmallfractionofproperty,butpartitionisofhugeproperty,and
asthepropertyadmittedlyhasexchangedseveralhandsbynow,wearenotinclinedtoinvalidate
thesaledeedexecutedbydefendantNo.1infavourofBalaMallaiaheventotheextentofhis
sharei.e.14/104thonthebasisofprincipleofpreemptionofMuslimlaw.Itwouldbetoolate
andiniquitoustoinvoketheprincipleofpreemptioninsuchacase,particularlywhennosuch
pleawasraisedattherelevanttimeandinthecourtsbelow.Incaseheirsweredesirousofraising
it,theyshouldhaveraisedtheirpleatimely.

79.InShaikMohd.AliAnsariv.ShaikAbdulSamed(Died)perLRs(2012)4ALD680(DB),the
questionoffiduciaryrelationshiphasbeendiscussed,butintheinstantcaseitisnotthecaseset
upbytheobjectors/purchasersthatthesaledeedwastheoutcomeoffiduciaryrelationship.

80.Thepartieshavebeenlitigatingsince1935forpartitionofproperty.Intheinstantcasesale
byHamidAliKhan,defendantNo.1isnotofundividedsharebutthatofaspecificpropertyi.e.
68acres10guntasinwhichhehadonly14/104thshare.Thusbeingatenantincommonhehad
noauthorityorrighttoselltheshareofothercoowners.Thevendorhadtherighttoselltothe
extentofhisownshareconsideringthenatureofsuccessionamongstMohammedans.Thusthe
saleofpropertyofothercosharerswasillegalandvoid.

81.SimilarquestionaroseinMansabAliKhan(supra)inwhichithasbeenlaiddownthatif
partitionhasnotbeeneffectedtheheircanonlysellhisundividedshareandcannotsella
particularplot.Itwassubmittedthatthoughthespecificplothasbeenalienatedbutinthewhole
undividedpropertyitwouldamounttolessthantheshareofanalienatingcoshareri.e.
defendantNo.1.Hehadshareofapproximately250acresinthematrukapropertiesleftbyLate
NawabJung.SimilarsubmissionwasrepelledbytheAllahabadHighCourtanditwasheldthat
totheextentoftheshareofvendoronlyinthespecificproperty,thesalecouldbeenforcedand
thevendorhadnorighttosellthespecificpropertywhichbelongedtoothercosharers.Thesale
ofaspecificpartofthepropertywhichwasnotinthevendor'sexclusiveownership,wasset
aside.AllahabadHighCourthaslaiddownthus:

3.ThesimplequestionthatIhavetodecideiswhetherinthesecircumstancestheplaintiff
appellantsareentitledtoadecreeforpossessionoftheirshareinthepropertyinsuit,including
thatportionofitwhichwastransferredin1920and1922byMt.NabiunnissatodefendantsNos.
2and3,ortoanyotherrelief.ItisnotquiteclearwhatthelowerappellateCourtmeantby
sayingthatthesaledeedwasnotchallengedbytheplaintiffsintheplaintonthegroundthatit
dealtwithonespecificplot,orinexpressingtheopinionthatsuchasaledeedisonlyvoidableat
theopinionofajointownerwithinsixyearsofthetransfer.Thewholeoftheplaintshowsthat
theplaintiffsclaimedtobeownersof12outof24sihamsinthepropertywhichhadbeenleftby
Mt.Wasiunnisa.TheyalsoclaimtohavebeeninjointpossessionwithMt.Nabiunnissaalthough
thelatter'snamealonehadbeenrecordedintherevenuepapers.Theircauseofactionwasthat
Mt.Nabiunnissahadtransferredpartofthepropertyandwhethertheirgrievancewasthatshe
hadtransferredmorethanherpropershareorthatshehadtransferredaspecificpartofthe
propertywhichwasnotinherownexclusiveownership,itisquiteclearthattheplaintiffs'object
wastodispelthecloudontheirtitleto12/24sihamsofthewholepropertywhichhadarisen
owingtothesaledeedsof1920and1922.Ithasnotbeenclearlyprovedthattheplaintiffshave
beeninjointpossessionofthewholeofthepropertyandtheyhavethereforepaidtheCourtfees
necessaryforadecreeforpossession.Whatiswanted,however,isadeclarationthattheyare
entitledtojointpossession,andinthecircumstancesitappearstomethattheyoughttoobtain
suchadecree.InthecaseofJafriBegamv.AmirMohammadKhan(1885)7All.822,itwas
heldthatinsomewhatsimilarcircumstancesaplaintiffcouldrecoverfromtheauctionpurchaser
hisshareinthepropertysoldonconditionthathepaidaproportionateshareoftheancestor's
debtforwhichthedecree(inexecutionofwhichthepropertyhadbeensold)waspassed.

4.AsregardsthequestionoftheamountwhichissaidtohavebeenpaidbyMt.Nabiunnissain
liquidationofhermother'sdebts,thetrialCourtfoundthatshepaidasumofRs.1,800andthat
theplaintiffswereliabletopayaproportionateamountviz.Rs.853140.Thelowerappellate
CourthasfoundthatsofarasRs.1,000isconcernedithasnotbeenprovedthatthedebtwasdue
orthatMt.Nabiunnissahasliquidatedit.Thereis,howevernofindingasregardsthebalanceof
Rs.800.Mr.Mohd.Husain,whoappearedinthisCourtonbehalfofMt.Nabiunnissa,has
arguedthatheisnotboundbythefindingsofthelowerappellateCourtwithregardtothese
debtsatall,becausethedecreeofthelowerappellateCourtwasinhisfavourandthesefindings
werethereforeirrelevant.Mt.Nabiunnissawashoweveroneofthepartiestotheappealinthe
lowerappellateCourtwherethesequestionsastothedebtswereagitatedanddecided,andsofar
asthefindingsofthelowerappellateCourtarefindingsoffacttheymustbeheldtobebinding
onMt.Nabiunnissa.

82.InAbdulMajeethKhanSahibv.C.Krishnamachariar(1917)5LW767,aFullBenchofthe
PrivyCouncilwasfacedwiththeissuethatifoneofthecoheirsofadeceasedMuhammadanin
possessionofthewholeestateofthedeceasedorofanypartofitsellsthepropertyinhis
possessionformingpartoftheestatefordischargingthedebtsofthedeceased,issuchsale
bindingonothercoheirsorcreditorsofthedeceased,andifso,towhatextent?Itwasheldthat
propertyofadeceasedMuhammadanvestsinhisheiruponhisdeathinspecifiedshare.Heirsof
thedeceasedtaketheirsharesinseveralty,astenantsincommonandunderMuhammadanLaw
oneheirofthedeceasedcannotbindsharestohiscoheirs.

83.Inouropinion,salebeyond14/104thsharebyHamidAlitoBalaMalliahwasvoid.The
MohammedanLawdoesnotrecognizetherightofoneofshareholdersbeingtenantsincommon
foractingonbehalfofothers.Whiledischargingdebtalsotheyactasindependentdebtors.Aco
sharercannotcreatechargeonpropertyofcoheir.TherightofMuslimheirisimmediately
definedineachfractionofestate.NotionofjointfamilypropertyisunknowntoMuslimlaw.Co
heirdoesnotactasagentwhiledischargingdebtbutisanindependentdebtornotascodebtoror
jointdebtor.Cosharersarenotdefinedasjointcontractors,partners,executorsormortgagees.

(viii)Inre:whetherthepurchaserhasarighttoclaimequityforallotmentofItemNo.6of
ScheduleBpropertyinfinaldecreeproceedingsinsuitforpartition?Ifyes,towhat
extent?

84.Itwascontendedonbehalfoftherespondentsthatinrespectoftransactionswhicharehitby
section52canbelookedintoatthetimeoffinaldecreeproceedings.However,preliminary
decreeintheinstantcaseidentifiesdifferentmodesandmannersunderwhichequitiescouldbe
adjustedatthetimeoffinaldecreeproceedings.Reliancehasbeenplaceduponfollowing
paragraphs81and93ofthejudgmentofthetrialcourtwhilepassingthepreliminarydecreein
theyear1970:

81.ItisfactestablishedthatthedeceasedhadgiftedthelandtoD1butthenextpointfor
considerationis,whethertheentirelandmeasuring24bigasand10bamswasgiftedtohimora
portionofitfortheconstructionofthehouse.ThelearnedcounselforD25arguedthattheentire
landwasgiventoD1andevenincludingS.No.22/2anotheritemaboutwhichIwilldeallater.
ThelearnedcounselsforD6andplaintiffcontendedthatthehouseofD1wasonlyonportion
oflandandthatitcannotbepresumedthattheentirelandofmorethan18acreswouldbegiven
fortheconstructionofthehouse.AsalreadyobservedthehouseofD1aroundthehouse.There
isnoevidenceonrecordtoshowtheextentoflandwithinthecompound.Oneofthewitness
statedthatitwas4or5acresandanotherstatedthatitwasabout15acres.Theplanofthe
compoundandtheareaofthehouseisnotmadetherecordofthesuit.OfcourseEx.Alif2while
givingpermissionfortheconstructionofthecompoundmentionedabouttheplanbutitdidnot
givetheareacoveredbyit.Subsequently,i.e.aftertheinstitutionofthesuitD1hadbuilta
cinemahouseandthehotelandmalgi.Anotherwitnesssaidthattherewasnoopenlandbetween
thecompoundandtheroad.Thereisnoclearpictureaboutthelocationforwantofsufficient
materialonrecord.Theprinciplescanbeworkedoutinthefinaldecreeproceedings.Inmyview
thedeceaseddidnotgifttheentirelandsituatedinAsifnagarbutonlysuchportionoflandon
whichD1hadbuiltthehouseandthecompound.Asalreadystatedbymethatthelandwas
givenforpurposeofconstructingresidentialhouse.ItisafactthatinEx.Alif4hegavethe
boundariesandstatedthataplanwasalsopreparedaftersurveyandsettlementbutitisnotfiled
andnothingcanbemadeoutfromtheboundariesgiveninEx.Alif4andalsoEx.Alif.Iamnot
inclinedtobelievethatonlythatportionoflandwasgiftedtohimonwhichthehousestands
excludingthecompoundbutinmyviewallthatportionoflandwasgiventoD1onwhichthe
housestandsandthelandwasgivenforthepurposeofconstructionthehouseandifmoreland
wasgiventohimhecouldhaveencloseditwiththecompoundorwithsomefence.My
conclusionisthatthelandcoveredbytheresidentialhouseandthecompoundwallwasgiftedto
D1andtheremaininglandoutsidethecompoundismatrukaproperty.Ifthecinemahousewas
builtonthelandoutsidethecompound,itcanbeadjustedtowardstheshareofD1inthefinal
decreeproceedings.

xxxxx

93.ItisafactandalsoadmittedinsomecasesthatD1hadsoldsomelandsinsomevillages.
Ex.B2toB9aresuchsaledeedsexecutedbyD1.ItwasexplainedbyD1thathewastopay
thelandrevenuetotheGovernmentandforthatpurposehehadtosellthelands.Ineednotgo
intothequestionaboutthelandssoldbyD1andaboutthesaleamountsrealized.Inthefinal
decreeproceedingsthesefactscanbetakenintoconsideration.D1wouldbeliabletoaccount
forthemoniesrealized.

85.Itisapparentthatthesaledeedinquestionwasnotreferredtoinpara93.Evenifthe
aforesaidobservationshadnotbeenmade,itwasopentotheexecutingcourttoadjustequityof
purchaserstothepermissibleextentaspurchaserspendentelitecanworkouttheequitiesin
accordancewithlawinthefinaldecreeproceedings.

86.ReliancehasbeenplacedbytherespondentsonadecisioninJayaramMudaliarv.
Ayyaswami(1972)2SCC200:

47.Itisevidentthatthedoctrine,asstatedinSection52,appliesnotmerelytoactualtransfers
orrightswhicharesubjectmatteroflitigationbuttootherdealingswithitbyanypartytothe
suitorproceeding,soastoaffecttherightofanyotherpartythereto.Hence,itcouldbeurged
thatwhereitisnotapartytothelitigationbutanoutsideagency,suchasthetaxcollecting
authoritiesoftheGovernment,whichproceedsagainstthesubjectmatteroflitigation,without
anythingdonebyalitigatingparty,theresultingtransactionwillnotbehitbySection52.Again,
whereallthepartieswhichcouldbeaffectedbyapendinglitigationarethemselvespartiestoa
transferordealingswithpropertyinsuchawaythattheycannotresilefromordisownthe
transactionimpugnedbeforetheCourtdealingwiththelitigation,theCourtmaybindthemto
theirownacts.AllthesearematterswhichtheCourtcouldhaveproperlyconsidered.The
purposeofSection52oftheTransferofPropertyActisnottodefeatanyjustandequitable
claimbutonlytosubjectthemtotheauthorityoftheCourtwhichisdealingwiththepropertyto
whichclaimsareputforward.

(emphasisaddedbyus)

87.ReliancehasalsobeenplacedonVinodanv.Vishwanathan(2009)4SCC66thus:

11.Inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,whilebalancingtheequitiesandforkeeping
peaceandhappinessinthefamily,wethinkitwouldbejustandpropertodirecttheappellantto
payRs.5,50,000totherespondentwithinaperiodoffourmonths.Onreceivingthesaidamount,
therespondentmayconstructasuitablehouseinhisportionofthelandandforthatpurposewe
grantoneyear'stimefromthedateofpaymentofRs.5,50,000totherespondenttovacatethe
portionofthebuildingwhichispresentlyinhispossessionandgivevacantandpeaceful
possessionofhisportionofthebuildingtotheappellantinlieuofpaymentofRs.5,50,000.We
aregrantingalongtimetotherespondenttovacatetheportionofthebuildinginhispossession
toavoidanyinconveniencetotherespondent.

88.DecisioninDhanlakshmiv.P.Mohan,(2007)10SCC719hasbeenreferredlayingdown
that:

5.Section52dealswithatransferofpropertypendingsuit.Intheinstantcase,theappellants
haveadmittedlypurchasedtheundividedsharesofRespondents2,3,4and6.Itisnotindispute
thatthefirstrespondentP.Mohanhasgotanundividedshareinthesaidsuitproperty.Because
ofthepurchasebytheappellantsoftheundividedshareinthesuitproperty,therightsofthefirst
respondenthereininthesuitorproceedingwillnotaffecthisrightinthesuitpropertyby
enforcingapartition.Admittedly,theappellants,havingpurchasedthepropertyfromtheother
cosharers,inouropinion,areentitledtocomeonrecordinordertoworkouttheequityintheir
favourinthefinaldecreeproceedings.Inouropinion,theappellantsarenecessaryandproper
partiestothesuit,whichisnowpendingbeforethetrialcourt.Wealsomakeitclearthatweare
notconcernedwiththeothersuitfiledbythemortgageeintheseproceedings.

89.Thoughitistruethatpurchaserscanworkouttheequityinthefinaldecreeproceedingsbutit
isonlytothelegallypermissibleextentandnotbeyondthat.Thepreliminarydecreedeclaredthe
sharesinitemNo.6ofScheduleBpropertyinspecifiedshares.Thepreliminarydecreeis
bindingandevenotherwisethesalewasvalidonlytotheextentoftheshareofdefendantNo.1
i.e.14/104thshareinthespecificpropertyandnotbeyondit.ThisCourtinK.AdiviNaiduv.E.
DuruvasuluNaidu(1995)6SCC150,haslaiddownthatwhenaspecificpropertycomprisingof
undividedshareinjointfamilypropertiesispurchasedbyappellantsfromalieneeofKartaofthe
jointfamilypriortopartitionsuitandwherethepreliminarydecreeinpartitionsuitdirectedthat
propertiesbedividedbymetesandbounds,takingthegoodandbadqualitiesthereof,thenthe
preliminarydecreewasallowedtobecomefinal.ThisCourtheldthatthetrialcourtshouldgive
effecttothepreliminarydecree,andthoughtheappellantshadnoequities,therestrictiveshareto
whichtheprincipalalienatorwasentitled,shouldbeallottedtothemasaspecialcase.Inthe
instantcase,preliminarydecreehasdeclaredtheshareonlytotheextentof14/104thinthe
disputedpropertyinitemNo.6,scheduleB.Thus,bynoequitableprinciplethepurchasercan
claimtheentirepropertytobeallottedtohim.

90.TherespondentshaveplacedrelianceonadecisionoftheHighCourtofMadrasinKhatoon
Bibiv.AbdulWahabSahibAIR1939Mad.306soastocontendthatthesaledeedinfavourof
BalaMallaiahdated23.11.1959isvalidandbindingondefendantNo.1,HamidAliKhan
notwithstandingthependencyofthepartitionsuit.InMuslimlawpropertycanbealienatedby
heirduringthependencyofthesuitforitspartition.InKhatoonBibi(supra)ithasbeenobserved
thatinheritancevestsimmediately,inMohammedanlaw,inhisheirandisnotsuspendedby
reasonofdebtsbeingduefromtheestateofthedeceasedandagainsttheothercoheirs,the
claimofbonafidepurchaserstohavetheshareintheparticularplotisnotabsolute.Itiswell
recognizedprincipleoflawrelatingtocoownersortenantsincommonthatanalienationbya
coowneroratenantincommonofashareinanyitemofthepropertyissubjecttotherightsand
equitiesoftheothercoownersortenantsincommon.Ithasalsobeenobservedonthebasisof
Cooperv.Fisher(1841)10LJCh221thatifpersonsdealinsuchinterestsasundividedshares,
theydosowiththeliabilityofhavingsomethingassignedtothemdifferentfromwhatthey
mightoriginallypossess.Thealieneeofpartofanundividedestatemusttakehisinterestsubject
toabillofpartitionbeingfiledagainsthim.Thecourtfurtherobservedthat:

11.Acoowneroratenantincommoncanalwaysfileasuitforpartitionandhavehisshare
definedanddeliveredtohim.TheCourtineffectingapartitionisboundtoadjustalltheequities
existingbetweenthepartiesandarisingoutoftheirrelationtothepropertytobedivided.The
equitiestobeadjustedwouldinvolveeverymatterrelatingtothecommonpropertywith
referencetowhichonetenantincommonmayequitablydemandanythingoftheothersuchas
contributionforrepairsorimprovementstothecommonproperty,accountingforwasteofthe
commonpropertyandtheenforcementofanylienorchargewhichatenantincommonmay
claimagainsttheotherinrespectofanymatterconcerningthecommonproperty.Inregardtothe
methodofdivisiontheCourtisnotboundtoallotanaliquotshareofeachspeciesofpropertyto
eachoftheparties.Itisenoughifeachtenantincommonhasanequalshareofthewhole.This
issubjecttotheotherequitieswhichmayhavetobeadjusted.Inthiscasetheplaintiffis
admittedlyentitledtoahalfshareintheestatebutsheisnotabletogetherdueandlegitimate
sharebyvirtueofthefactthatdefendants1to3havedissipatedamajorportionoftheestate
consistingofthemoveableproperty.Theplaintiffisthereforejustlyentitledtodemandthatall
theimmovablepropertyshouldbeassignedtoherandthatnoportionoftheimmovableproperty
shouldbeclaimedbydefendants1to3.FreemanonCotenancyandPartitiondealingwith
equitieswhichmaybeenforcedinasuitforpartitionobservedatpage676thus:

Ifoneofthecotenantshaswastedanypartofthelandsofthecotenancy,theCourtmaytake
thatfactintoconsiderationanddojusticebetweenthepartiesbyassigningtothewrongdoerthe
partwhichhehaswasted.

xxxxx

13.Thequestionnowarises,shouldanyportionofthepropertybyvirtueofthealienationby
defendants1to3pendentelitebeallottedtotheshareofthedefendantsinordertogiveeffectto
theallegedequitablerightinfavourofthealienees?Ordinarilyitwouldbejustandproperto
allocatepropertieswhichhavebeenalienatedtothesharesofthealienor.Butwhereitisnot
practicableorequitable,theCourtisnotboundtoallotthosepropertiesbutmightallotanyother
propertiesandthealieneesonlyrightistohaverecoursetothepropertiessoallotted.Itmaybe
thatthesubstitutedpropertyorsecuritymayproveworthlessbutitisariskeveryalieneeofan
undividedinterestofatenantincommoninaspecificitemofpropertytakesasanecessary
incidentofthealienation.ThereforethereisnothingtoprecludeaCourtfromawardingtothe
plaintifftheimmovablepropertiesandawardingtothedefendantsthemoveablepropertieswhich
havebeenwastedbythem,theonlyremedyofthealieneebeingtoproceedagainstthemoveable
propertiesintheirhands.Butwhatisallegedinthiscaseisthatthealieneesarebonafide
alieneesandtheyhavegotthereforeanequityintheirfavour.Butitseemstometheequityof
theplaintiffinthiscaseisparamounttotheequityinfavourofthealienees.Shehasbeen
unjustlydeprivedofherlegitimateshareinthepropertybythewrongfulactofdefendants1to3
aidedbydefendant4,andthepropertywasconvertedandappropriatedfortheiruseduringher
minority.Shelostnotimeinenforcingherclaimassoonassheattainedmajorityandthe
alienationswerependentelite.Thealieneesallegethattheywereignorantoftheinstitutionofthe
suitbutthatfactisinmyopinionimmaterialastheycannotgethigherrightsthantheiralienors,
i.e.analieneefromacotenanttakeshisinterestsubjecttotheequitiesoftheothercotenants.
Butthisisacaseinwhich,ifthealieneeswerenotparties,theywillbeaffectedbythedoctrine
oflispendens.Thetitletotheimmovablepropertyisspecificallyinquestionwithinthemeaning
ofSection52oftheTransferofPropertyAct.

14.Aquestionoftitlehasbeenraised,namelywhetherthepropertyinthesuitbelongedsolelyto
AbdulRahimanorwasthejointpropertyofdefendants1to3andAbdulRahiman.Thisissue
wouldbequitesufficienttoattracttheoperationoflispendens.Nodoubtasuitfor
administrationhasbeenheldnottoattracttheoperationoflispendensuntilapreliminarydecree
foradministrationhasbeenpassed.Butinthiscasetheplaintiffhasalsoprayedforpartitionand
deliveryofhershareandforanaccountonthebasisthatdefendants1to3havewrongfully
possessedthemselvesofherfather'spropertyandmisappropriatedthebulkofitandthissuit
cannotthereforebeviewedasabareadministrationsuit.Butsincethealieneesareformallyon
recordandtheywillbeboundbyanydecreepassedinthesuit,thereisnoneedtoconsiderthe
applicabilityofSection52oftheTransferofPropertyAct.Buttheprincipleunderlyingthe
Sectionwillhavetobeappliedinfavouroftheplaintiff,i.e.theCourtinmakingtheadjustment
ofequitiesingivingrelieftoheroughttoconfineitselftothelegalrightsofthecoheirsonthe
dateoftheinstitutionofthesuitwithoutreferencetotheequitablerightsofpersonswhoderived
titlefromthempendenteliteasherrightsshouldnotbeprejudicedbyanyinterveningequityin
thealienees.Theplaintiffisentitledtosaythatsofarassheisconcerned,sheisnotboundto
takeanynoticeofatitleacquiredsincethefilingofthesuitandastothemitisasifnosuch
titleexisted.

91.TheCourthasreiteratedtheprinciplethatanalieneefromacotenanttakessubjecttothe
equitiesfromothercotenantsandincasealieneeswerenotpartiestheywouldbeaffectedbythe
doctrineoflispendens.Thedecisionisofnoapplicationinthefactsoftheinstantcaseas
alienationmadewasbeyondtheinterestinthepropertyofalienatingcosharerandinthe
proceedingsforfinaldecreeitself,nosuchequitablerighthasbeenclaimedbypurchaseras
discussedhereinafter.Toclaimsuchanequityseparatebundleoffactswasrequiredtobe
pleadedandestablished.Thus,inabsencethereof,itisnotpossibleintheinstantcasetowork
outtheequitiesofthepurchasersinotherpropertiesallottedtotheshareofthevendor.

92.ReliancehasbeenplacedonadecisionoftheHighCourtofM.P.inAbdulRahmanv.
HamidAliShahAIR1959MP190.Themainquestionforconsiderationwaswithrespectto
maintainabilityofthesuitforpartialpartitionorthesuithastobefiledforgeneralpartitionofall
theproperties.Ithasbeenobservedthatanalieneeofspecificitemofpropertyhasalsotobe
givenarighttosueforgeneralpartitionsoastoclaimequitablerightagainsthisvendor.Inthe
instantcasethepropositionhasnoapplicationfirstlyforthereasonthatnosuchequityhasbeen
claimedbythepurchasersintheobjectionsfiledinthefinaldecreeproceedings.Theclaimwas
toretainonlythespecificpropertywhichhadbeenalienatedbydefendantNo.1.

93.ReliancehasalsobeenplacedonTikamChandLuniav.RahimKhanIshakKhanAIR1971
MP23.FollowingtheaforesaiddecisionoftheM.P.HighCourtinAbdulRahman(supra),law
tothesimilareffecthasbeenlaiddown.Inthelatterdecisionithasbeenheldthatwhenspecific
propertycannotbeallottedtotheshareofthealienor,salemustbeconstruedtobesaleofso
muchportionascanjustlybegiventotheshareofthealienor.Intheinstantcasethealienorhad
only14/104thshareandthathasbeenrightlyallottedtohim.

94.ReliancehasalsobeenplacedonT.G.AshokKumarv.Govindammal(2010)14SCC370in
whichithasbeenlaiddownthatinthecaseofpendentelitetransferofpropertyduringthe
pendencyofthepartitionsuitheldbytheothercoowner,salependenteliteisnotvoidbut
subjecttothedecreeinpartitionsuit.Thetitleofthevendeewoulddependuponthedecisionin
thepartitionsuitinregardtothetitleofvendor.Ifthevendorhastitleonlyinrespectofapartof
theproperty,vendee'stitlewouldbesavedonlytothatextent.Thesaleoftheremainingportion
whichfelltotheshareofothercoownerwouldbeineffective.Onthebasisoftheaforesaid
decision,BalaMallaiah,hisheirsandpurchaserscangetwhatcanbeallottedtovendorHamid
AliKhan'sshare.Thatpreciselyisthepreliminaryaswellasthefinaldecree.ThisCourtinT.G.
AshokKumar(supra)haslaiddownthusandtherelevantportionisextractedhereunder:

14.Ontheotherhand,ifthetitleofthependentelitetransferorisrecognisedoracceptedonly
inregardtoapartofthetransferredproperty,thenthetransferee'stitlewillbesavedonlyin
regardtothatextentandthetransferinregardtotheremainingportionofthetransferred
propertytowhichthetransferorisfoundnotentitled,willbeinvalidandthetransfereewillnot
getanyright,titleorinterestinthatportion.

15.Ifthepropertytransferredpendentelite,isallottedinentiretytosomeotherpartyorparties
orifthetransferorisheldtohavenorightortitleinthatproperty,thetransfereewillnothave
anytitletotheproperty.Whereacoowneralienatesapropertyoraportionofaproperty
representingtobetheabsoluteowner,equitiescannodoubtbeadjustedwhilemakingthe
divisionduringthefinaldecreeproceedings,iffeasibleandpractical(thatis,withoutcausing
lossorhardshiporinconveniencetootherparties)byallottingthepropertyorportionofthe
propertytransferredpendentelite,totheshareofthetransferor,sothatthebonafidetransferee's
rightandtitlearesavedfullyorpartially.
95.Itisapparentfromtheaforesaiddecisionthatatransfereemaylosetheentirepropertyalso
thoughequitiescanbeworkedoutbymakingallotmentofpropertywhichhasbeentransferred
pendentelitebutintheinstantcasesuchequityisnotpermissibleinviewoftheprovisionsof
MohammedanLawaswellasthefactthatnosuchequityhasbeenclaimedforallotmentoutof
otherpropertiesfallentotheshareofthevendor.

96.ReliancehasalsobeenplacedonKhemchandShankarChaudhariv.VishnuHariPatil
(1983)1SCC18inwhichthisCourthaslaiddownthus:

6.Section52oftheTransferofPropertyActnodoubtlaysdownthatatransfereependentelite
ofaninterestinanimmovablepropertywhichisthesubjectmatterofasuitfromanyofthe
partiestothesuitwillbeboundinsofarasthatinterestisconcernedbytheproceedingsinthe
suit.Suchatransfereeisarepresentativeininterestofthepartyfromwhomhehasacquiredthat
interest.Rule10ofOrder22oftheCodeofCivilProcedureclearlyrecognisestherightofa
transfereetobeimpleadedasapartytotheproceedingsandtobeheardbeforeanyorderis
made.Itmaybethatifhedoesnotapplytobeimpleaded,hemaysufferbydefaultonaccountof
anyorderpassedintheproceedings.Butifheappliestobeimpleadedasapartyandtobeheard,
hehasgottobesoimpleadedandheard.Hecanalsopreferanappealagainstanordermadein
thesaidproceedingsbutwiththeleaveoftheappellatecourtwhereheisnotalreadybroughton
record.Thepositionofapersononwhomanyinteresthasdevolvedonaccountofatransfer
duringthependencyofanysuitoraproceedingissomewhatsimilartothepositionofanheiror
alegateeofapartywhodiesduringthependencyofasuitoraproceeding,oranOfficial
Receiverwhotakesovertheassetsofsuchapartyonhisinsolvency.Anheiroralegateeoran
OfficialReceiveroratransfereecanparticipateintheexecutionproceedingseventhoughtheir
namesmaynothavebeenshowninthedecree,preliminaryorfinal.Iftheyapplytothecourtto
beimpleadedaspartiestheycannotbeturnedout.TheCollectorwhohastoeffectpartitionofan
estateunderSection54oftheCodeofCivilProcedurehasnodoubttodivideitinaccordance
withthedecreesenttohim.Butifapartytosuchadecreediesleavingsomeheirsaboutwhose
interestthereisnodisputeshouldhefolduphishandsandreturnthepaperstothecivilcourt?
Heneednotdoso.Hemayproceedtoallottheshareofthedeceasedpartytohisheirs.Similarly
hemay,whenthereisnodispute,allottheshareofadeceasedpartyinfavourofhislegatees.In
thecaseofinsolvencyofaparty,theOfficialReceivermaybeallottedtheshareoftheinsolvent.
Inthecaseoftransfereespendentelitealso,ifthereisnodispute,theCollectormayproceedto
makeallotmentofpropertiesinanequitablemannerinsteadofrejectingtheirclaimforsuch
equitablepartitiononthegroundthattheyhavenolocusstandi.Atransfereefromapartyofa
propertywhichisthesubjectmatterofpartitioncanexercisealltherightsofthetransferor.
Thereisnodisputethatapartycanaskforanequitablepartition.Atransfereefromhim,
therefore,canalsodoso.SuchaconstructionofSection54oftheCodeofCivilProcedure
advancesthecauseofjustice.Otherwiseineverycasewhereapartydies,orwhereapartyis
adjudicatedasaninsolventorwherehetransferssomeinterestinthesuitpropertypendentelite
thematterhasgottobereferredbacktothecivilcourteventhoughtheremaybenodispute
aboutthesuccession,devolutionortransferofinterest.Inanysuchcasewherethereisnodispute
iftheCollectormakesanequitablepartitiontakingintoconsiderationtheinterestsofall
concernedincludingthoseonwhomanyinterestinthesubjectmatterhasdevolved,hewould
neitherbeviolatingthedecreenortransgressinganylaw.Hisactionwouldnotbeultravires.On
theotherhand,itwouldbeinconformitywiththeintentionofthelegislaturewhichhasplaced
theworkofpartitionoflandssubjecttopaymentofassessmenttotheGovernmentinhishands
tobecarriedoutinaccordancewiththelaw(ifany)forthetimebeinginforcerelatingtothe
partitionortheseparatepossessionofshares.

97.Thereisnodisputeontheaforesaidprinciple.Theaforesaidprinciplehasbeenfollowedin
theinstantcaseandpermissiblesharehasbeenallotted.Thusthedecisionisofnofurther
assistancetothecauseespoused.

98.InJayaramMudaliarv.Ayyaswami(1972)2SCC200,ithasbeenlaiddownthus:

47.Itisevidentthatthedoctrine,asstatedinSection52,appliesnotmerelytoactualtransfers
orrightswhicharesubjectmatteroflitigationbuttootherdealingswithitbyanypartytothe
suitorproceeding,soastoaffecttherightofanyotherpartythereto.Hence,itcouldbeurged
thatwhereitisnotapartytothelitigationbutanoutsideagency,suchasthetaxcollecting
authoritiesoftheGovernment,whichproceedsagainstthesubjectmatteroflitigation,without
anythingdonebyalitigatingparty,theresultingtransactionwillnotbehitbySection52.Again,
whereallthepartieswhichcouldbeaffectedbyapendinglitigationarethemselvespartiestoa
transferordealingswithpropertyinsuchawaythattheycannotresilefromordisownthe
transactionimpugnedbeforetheCourtdealingwiththelitigation,theCourtmaybindthemto
theirownacts.AllthesearematterswhichtheCourtcouldhaveproperlyconsidered.The
purposeofSection52oftheTransferofPropertyActisnottodefeatanyjustandequitable
claimbutonlytosubjectthemtotheauthorityoftheCourtwhichisdealingwiththepropertyto
whichclaimsareputforward.

48.Inthecasebeforeus,theCourtshadgivendirectionstosafeguardsuchjustandequitable
claimsasthepurchaserappellantmayhaveobtainedwithouttrespassingontherightsofthe
plaintiffrespondentinthejointpropertyinvolvedinthepartitionsuitbeforetheCourt.Hence,
thedoctrineoflispendenswascorrectlyapplied.
99.InMarirudraiahv.B.Sarojamma(2009)12SCC710,aConstitutionBenchofthisCourtset
asideanorderpassedbytheHighCourtdirectingallotmentofItemNo.9soldpendenteliteto
purchaserandcompensationtothecosharersofhispredecessorininterestintermsofmoney
basedonthemarketvalueofthepropertywhichwasalienatedtohim.ThisCourthaslaiddown
thatcourtsarenotsupposedtoencouragependentelitetransactions,andregularizingtheir
conductbyshowingequityintheirfavouratthecostofcosharers.

100.InKammanaSambamurthy(Dead)byLRs.v.KalipatnapuAtchutamma(Dead)(2011)11
SCC153,thisCourthaslaiddownthatwhenthevendorwashavingonlyshareintheproperty
butexecutedthecontractforsaleoftheentireproperty,thevendeewouldbeentitledtodecree
forspecificperformanceonlytotheextentofshareofthevendorandnotbeyondit.

101.InNovaAdsv.MetropolitanTransportCorporation(2015)13SCC257,thisCourthas
consideredvariousdecisionslikeRajaRamMahadevParanjypev.AbaMarutiMaliAIR1962
SC753,P.M.Lathav.StateofKerala(2003)3SCC541,RaghunathRajBarejav.Punjab
NationalBank(2007)2SCC230,MadamanchiRamappav.MothaluruBojjappaAIR1963SC
1633,LaxminarayanR.Bhattadv.StateofMaharashtra(2003)5SCC413,Nasiruddinv.Sita
RamAgarwal(2003)2SCC577,E.Palanisamyv.Palanisamy(2003)1SCC123,IndiaHouse
v.KishanN.Lalwani(2003)9SCC393andhasobservedthatlawwillprevailovertheequity
principlewhentheycannotbeharmonizedthus:

45.InRajaRamMahadevParanjypev.AbaMarutiMaliAIR1962SC753,athreeJudge
Benchhasopinedthat:(AIRp.756,para9)

9.Equitydoesnotoperatetoannulastatute.Thisappearstoustobewellestablishedbutwe
mayrefertoWhiteandTudor'sLeadingcasesonEquity(9thEdn.,p.238),whereitisstated:

Although,incasesofcontractbetweenparties,equitywilloftenrelieveagainstpenaltiesand
forfeitures,wherecompensationcanbegranted,reliefcanneverbegivenagainsttheprovisions
ofastatute.

46.InP.M.Lathav.StateofKerala(2003)3SCC541,ithasbeenopined:(SCCp.546,para
13)
13.Equityandlawaretwinbrothersandlawshouldbeappliedandinterpretedequitablybut
equitycannotoverridewrittenorsettledlaw.

47.InRaghunathRajBarejav.PunjabNationalBank(2007)2SCC230,theCourtobserved
thatitiswellsettledthatwhenthereisaconflictbetweenlawandequity,itisthelawwhichhas
toprevail.TheCourtfurtherruledthatequitycansupplementthelaw,butitcannotsupplantor
overrideit.Inthiscontext,reliancewasalsoplaceduponMadamanchiRamappav.Muthaluru
BojjappaAIR1963SC1633,LaxminarayanR.Bhattadv.StateofMaharashtra(2003)5SCC
413,Nasiruddinv.SitaRamAgarwal(2003)2SCC577,E.Palanisamyv.Palanisamy(2003)1
SCC123,andIndiaHousev.KishanN.Lalwani(2003)9SCC393.

102.ReliancehasbeenplacedonRaghunathRaiBarejav.PunjabNationalBank(2007)2SCC
230,inwhichtheLatinmaximduralexsedlexwhichmeansthelawishard,butitisthelaw
wasapplied.Relyinguponthatithasbeenobservedthatequitycanonlysupplementthelaw,but
itcannotsupplantoroverrideit.Butwhenthereisaconflictbetweenlawandequity,itisthelaw
whichhastoprevail.

103.Intheinstantcase,equitablerightofallotmentofsomelandotherthanwhichwas
purchasedoutofsomeotherpropertiesallottedtotheshareofvendorHamidAliKhan,D1has
notbeenclaimedintheobjectionsfiledduringthefinaldecreeproceedingsfiledbythe
purchasers.Thepropertyadmittedlyhasexchangedhandsanumberoftimesduringthe
pendencyofsuitfrom1935tilldateandhowtheequityistobeworkedoutisalwaysaquestion
offactineverycase,howmuchsharehasbeenallottedtotheshareofonevendorandhowmuch
propertyhehadalreadyalienatedtillthattimeandwhatarethedebtsorchargesontheproperty
thatarelegallypermissible,wouldbesomeoftherelevantconsiderations.Nothingofthatsort
hasbeenpleadedbythepurchasersintheobjectionsfiledinthefinaldecreeproceedings.
Thoughintheabsenceofclaimingequitablerightintheshareofvendor'sotherproperties,it
cannotbeworkedoutanditisdoubtfulwhenundividedsharehasnotbeensoldandthespecific
propertyhadbeenpurchased,suchequitablerightcanbeenforced.Evenassumingthatthe
purchasercouldworkouttheequity,howeverintheabsenceofpleadingsandevidencerequired
forthepurpose,itwouldamounttomisadventure.Wedonotproposetogiveanyfindingon
submissionanditscorrectness,madeonbehalfoftheappellantsthatdefendantNo.1hadgone
onasellingspreelikeanythingandbeforeexecutingthesaledeedon23.11.1959hehadalready
soldmorethan1000acresoflandwhichwasinexcessofhisentitlement,intheabsenceof
pleadingbyappellantsorpurchasersonthebasisoforalsubmissionsmadebeforeus.Inthe
absenceofrequisitedata,pleadingsandevidence,questionofworkingoutequityinaforesaid
manner,cannotbeexaminedorgoneintobythisCourtatthisstage.Theclaimofequityis
outcomeofingenuityofargumentsmadeonlyinthisCourtlikeadrowningfishtryingtocatch
laststraw.Wearenotatallimpressedbythesubmission,andconsequentlythesameisrepelled,
moresoconsideringtheprovisionsoftheMohammedanLawthatsalebeyondtheextentofthe
shareofthevendorinspecificpropertywasvoid.

(ix)Inre:whethersalewasforlegalnecessity,andthusbinding:

104.Itwassubmittedthatsalewasforlegalnecessityforbenefitofestate.Ithasbeenaverredin
theobjectionspreferredbythepurchasersthatsalewasmadebyHamidAliKhan,defendantNo.
1,forpaymentoflandrevenue.Thusitwascontendedthatthepaymentoflandrevenuehas
enuredforthebenefitoftheentireestate.Thussalewouldbevalidandbindingoncoheirs.
Exceptmakingtheaforesaidbaldstatement,nothinghasbeenplacedonrecordtoindicatethat
thesalewasforpaymentoflandrevenue.Ontheotherhand,whenweperusethesaledeed,
recitalofitmakesitclearthatthesalewaseffectedbyHamidAliKhanforhispersonal
necessity.Hehadnotexecutedthesaledeedforpaymentoflandrevenueasitsrecitalis
otherwisewhichwouldprevail.Northesaledeedhadbeenexecutedinthefiduciarycapacity
actingonbehalfofcosharersratherhehasclaimedinthesaledeedthathewastheexclusive
ownerof68acres10guntasareaofpropertyandwasinpossessionthereof.Hehadsoldtheland
foraconsiderationofRs.2000inviewofhispersonalnecessity.Thesalewasmadeaftertaking
permissionfromtheDeputyCollectorDivision,Distt.West,Hyderabad.Thus,thesaledeed
negatestheaforesaidbaldavermentmadeintheobjectionpetition.Evenotherwiseunderthe
MohammedanLaw,itwasnotopentoHamidAliKhan,defendantNo.1toactinfiduciary
capacitytosellthepropertyandbindsharesofothers.Itisnotmentionedinsaledeedthat
HamidAliKhanhadsoldforanylegalnecessityorforthebenefitoftheentireestate.Therecital
insaledeedhastheevidentiaryvalueandBalaMallaiahandhissuccessorsareboundbywhat
hasbeenmentionedtherein.Thus,nocaseismadeoutonthebasisoftheaforesaidsubmission
alsotomakeaninterference.

(x)Inre:theeffectofproceedingsundertheTenancyAct,1950:

105.Itwascontendedonbehalfoftherespondentsthatwithrespecttothedisputedpropertythe
proceedingswereinitiatedbyBoddamNarsimhaundertheActof1950.BoddamMallaiahwasa
lesseefor3years.Hewasinductedintheaforesaidlandsunderakouldated1.3.1953executed
byHamidAliKhan,whowasdefendantNo.1inthepartitionsuit.Initially,itwasforoneyear
andwasrenewedeachyearlateron.HamidAliKhanexecutedasaledeedinfavourofBala
Mallaiahon23.11.1959.Afterthesaledeed,BalaMallaiahbecameapattedarinplaceofHamid
AliKhaninrespectofthesuitland.BalaMallaiahwasthepaternaluncleofBoddamNarsimha.
AnapplicationwasfiledbyBoddamNarsimhaundersection37AoftheTenancyActonthe
groundthatLateBalaMallaiahwasaprotectedtenantandprayedforissuanceofownership
certificateundersection38EoftheActof1950.Thetribunalvideorderdated24.8.1999held
thatBalaMallaiahneverprotestedtheomissionofentryoftenancyfromtherevenuerecordsas
deemedtenant,anditwasfoundthattherewerenoprotectedtenantsinMadhapurvillage.The
orderwasquestionedintheappealundersection90oftheActwhichwasdismissedbytheJoint
Collectoron13.3.2000.Thereafter,WritPetitionNo.2229/2000waspreferredbeforetheHigh
CourtofJudicatureatAndhraPradeshwhichwasalsodismissedbytheHighCourton16.4.2001
andthesamewasquestionedbeforethisCourtwhichdismissedappealinBoddamNarsimha
(supra).

106.However,onbehalfoftherespondentsithasbeensubmittedthatBalaMallaiahhasbecome
pattedarvideconveyancedeeddated23.11.1959.ThecasesetupbyBalaMallaiahthathewas
jointlycultivatingthesuitlandalongwithhistwobrothersKomaraiahandAgaiahwasfoundto
bemeritlessandnegativedfortheperiodbetween1952and1959.On1.1.1973whenthe
notificationcametobeissued,BalaMallaiahwasnottheprotectedtenant.Thecasesetupby
BoddamNarsimharegardingprotectedtenancyandissuanceofownershipcertificatewas
negatived.ThisCourtnotedthatevenforthesakeofargumentsifitisacceptedthatBalawasa
protectedtenanton12.2.1956,hestillbecameapattedarvideconveyancedeeddated
23.11.1959,andinanyeventassumedprotectedtenancydidnotcontinueupto1.1.1973,and
therefore,theappellantwasnotentitledtoownershipcertificateundersection38E.Section38E
oftheActof1950hadnoapplicationtothefactsofthecase.ThisCourthasdiscussedthematter
thus:

13.BalawasakaulwhohadtakenanannualleasefromHamidAliKhan.Hewasatenantat
will.Thiswasduringthependencyofthepartitionsuit.Hebecameapattedarvideconveyance
dated23111959.Thekaulitselfindicates,thatBalawastocultivateinhisindividualcapacity;
thatattheendoftheyear,Balahadtoreturnthelandstotheowner;thatBalawasnotgiventhe
righttoincludeanyothercultivator.Therefore,thereisnomeritinthecontentionofthe
appellantthatBalawasjointlycultivatingthesuitlandswithhistwobrothersAgaiah(fatherof
theappellant)andKomaraiah.Further,betweentenancyandtheconveyance,therewasatime
gap.HamidAliKhanwasapattedar.HisrightswerepurchasedbyBalavideconveyancedated
23111959,therefore,on111973,whenthenotificationcametobeissued,Balawasnotthe
tenant.Hewasapattedar.Moreover,theappellanthereinisnottheLRofBala.Balawashis
paternaluncle.Atnopointoftime,eventheLRsofBalahadclaimedthatBalawasaprotected
tenant.ItisevidentfromSection38Ethatthesaidsectionhasbeenenactedforthoseprotected
tenantswhoaredeclaredtobeprotectedtenantsandincludedintheregisterpreparedforthat
purpose.Apersonbecomesaprotectedtenantwhenheisaholderonthedatesorfortheperiods
mentionedinSections35,37and37A.Onceapersonbecomesaprotectedtenant,heisentitled
toanownershipcertificateunderSection38E.InSadav.TahsildarAIR1988AP77FullBench
oftheAndhraPradeshHighCourtheldthatapersonholdsthelandasprotectedtenantifheis
stillaprotectedtenantonthenotifieddatei.e.111973,thoughoutofpossession.Aslongashis
rightasprotectedtenanthasnotbeendeterminedbythedateofnotificationinamannerknown
totheAct,heholdsthelandasaprotectedtenant,whetherphysicallyinpossessionornot.For
thevestingofownershipoflandheldbyaprotectedtenantunderSection38E,itisnot
necessarythattheprotectedtenantshouldbeinphysicalpossessionon111973.Itissufficient
ifhecontinuestoholdthestatusofaprotectedtenantonthenotifieddate,evenifheisnotin
physicalpossession.TheActdoesnotmerelyregulatetherelationshipoflandlordandtenantbut
dealswiththealienationofagriculturallandandincludestransferofthelandholder'sinterestto
theprotectedtenants.Therefore,thegrantofpattedari(ownershiprights)alsofindsplaceinthe
Act.

14.Onthefactsandcircumstancesofthepresentcase,Balahadbecomeapattedar(owner)
undertheconveyancedeeddated23111959.Hisnamewasshownasapattedarevenpriorto1
11973.ThebenefitofSection38Eisgiventopersonswhoholdthelandsasprotectedtenants
andwhocontinuetoholdthelandsasprotectedtenantson111973.Theprotectedtenancyhas
tobeenforcedon111973.UnderSection38E,ownershiprightsareconferredonlyupon
personswhocontinuetobeprotectedtenantsason111973.Theyformaspecialclass.Inthe
presentcase,asstatedabove,Balabecameapattedarin1959.InSada(supra)ithasbeenheld
thatprotectedtenantsarecoveredbyChapterIVoftheAct.Theyfallunderalimitedcategory.
TheyarereferredtoinSections34,37and37A.Inthesaidjudgment,ithasbeenheldthat
Section37A,introducedbyAct3of1956dealswithaseparateclassofpersonsdeemedtobe
protectedtenants.Thisclassofpersonsisdifferentfromthecategoryofprotectedtenantswho
fallunderSections34and37respectively.Section37Areferstopersonswhoareholdersofthe
landatthecommencementofamendingActof1955(1231956).Thesepersonswererequired
tobetenantson1231956andthattheyshouldcontinuetobetenantstill111973.Onlysuch
categoryofpersonsareentitledtoownershipcertificateunderSection38E.Inthepresentcase,
evenforthesakeofargument,ifweweretoproceedonthebasisthatBalawasaprotected
tenanton1231956,stillBalabecameapattedarvideconveyancedeeddated23111959,
therefore,inanyevent,theassumedprotectedtenancydidnotcontinueupto111973.Inour
opinion,therefore,inanyviewofthematter,theappellanthereinwasnotentitledtothe
ownershipcertificateunderSection38EoftheAct.Section38Ehasnoapplicationtothefacts
ofthepresentcase.

107.ThisCourtinaforesaidcasehasonlydecidedthequestionaboutprotectedtenancywhich
wasclaimedandissuanceofownershipcertificatebyBoddamNarsimhaundersection38E.No
otherquestionwasinvolvedforconsiderationintheproceedingsundertheActof1950.Thus,
thedecisioncannotbetakentobeanauthorityonaquestionwhichwasnotagitated.Boddam
NarsimhawhofiledthesaidproceedingshadlostuptothisCourtandinthattherewasamere
mentionofthefactthatbyvirtueoftheconveyancedeed,BalaMallaiahbecamepattedarvide
registeredsaledeeddated23.11.1959.Therewasnoadjudicationonthevariousissuesastothe
legalityorvalidityofthesaidrightswhichcouldbeconferredbysaledeedandtowhatextent
HamidAliKhancouldhavealienatedtoBalaMallaiahandissueaboutlispendensetc.never
cameupforconsideration.Thus,thedecisionisofnohelpandcannotbetakentobean
adjudicationbythisCourtwithrespecttotherightsofHamidAliKhanorBalaMallaiahin
matrukapropertieswhichwasnotanissueintheaforesaidcase.Thescopeoftheproceedings
andtheissueinvolvedweretotallydifferent.Thus,nosustenancecanbederivedbythe
respondentsbyrelyingupontheaforesaiddecisioninwhichBoddamNarsimhainfacthadlost.

108.ItwasalsocontendedthatHamidAliKhanwasrecordedaspattedarafterthedeathof
NawabJung.TheplaintiffsandotherheirsofLateNawabJungwereawarethatthenameof
HamidAliKhanhadbeenrecordedintherevenuerecords.Thetransferwasmadewiththe
permissionoftheCollectorundersection47ofthe1950Act.Anypersonaffectedbyanyentry
insuchrecordofrightsunderRegulation4oftheHyderabadRecordofRightsinLand
Regulations,1948wasrequiredtoquestionthesamewithintwoyears.BalaMallaiahwasin
possession.Thus,thedecreewhichhasbeenpassedignoringtherightsofthepattedarisbadin
law.Inouropinion,admittedly,itwasamatrukapropertyofLateNawabJung.Thesuitfor
partitionwaspendingw.e.f.1935andmutationsimpliciterinthenameofHamidAliKhan
conferrednoright,titleorinterest.Themutationisonlyforthefiscalpurposeandisnotdecisive
ofright,titleorinterestinthepropertywhichiswithinthedomainofthecivilcourt.Thegrantof
pattafrom1953onwardsbyHamidAliKhantoBalaMallaiahwasonyearlybasisandthe
executionofsaledeedandthegrantoflandonyearlybasiswereduringlispendens.Thus,the
transactionsarecoveredbythedoctrineoflispendensandwereclearlysubjecttotheoutcomeof
thependingpartitionproceedings.InVenkatraoAnantdeoJoshiv.Malatibai(2003)1SCC722,
aquestioncameupforconsiderationassumingthatpendingsuitforpartition,abataipatrawas
executedonthebasisofwhichtenancyrightswereclaimed.Itwasheldthatsuchbataipatra
wouldnotconferanyrightontheperson.Itbeinghitbytheprincipleoflispendens.ThisCourt
hasheldthus:

8.Atthetimeofhearingofthisappeal,learnedcounselfortheappellantssubmittedthatthe
pleaoftenancyraisedbyBaburaoisonthefaceofit,bogussoastodefeattherightsofthe
appellantswhicharecrystallisedatthetimeofpassingofthepreliminarydecree.Presumingthat
pendingthesuitforpartition,evenifbataipatraisexecuted,itwouldnotconferanyrightson
Baburaoasitishitbyprinciplesoflispendens.Inanycase,asthepreliminarydecreebecomes
final,itwasnotopenforBaburaotoraisesuchcontentionatthetimeofpassingoffinaldecree
forpartition.

9.Withregardtolispendens,learnedcounselfortheappellantsrightlyreferredtothejudgment
anddecreepassedinRegularCivilSuitNo.51of1973andcontendedthatpresumingthatthe
socalledbataipatrawasatallexecutedbyAnantdeo,itwasnotopentohimtoexecutethe
samependingdisposalofthesuitfiledbyAppellant1forpartitionoftheproperty.Inthatsuit,
Appellant1andhismotherhadchallengedthetransferoflandoutofSurveyNo.60/Aandalso
forpartitionofthesuitproperty.Byelaboratejudgmentandorder,thesuitfiledbytheappellants
wasdecreedtotheextentthattheywereentitledto2/3rdshareinthesuitproperties.Thecourt
hadalsodirectedmesneprofits.Tillthedateofthedecree,itwascontendedbyAnantdeothathe
wasinpossessionofportionofthesuitlandandtheremainingportionwasinpossessionof
Malatibai,inviewofthesaledeedinherfavour.Ithasalsobeenspecificallycontendedthatfor
sometime,propertywasinpossessionofBaburaopriortomarriageofShakuntalaBaiandthen
inpossessionofonePandurangSaokarandlastlyitwasinpossessionofMalatibaiandhimself.
ThecourtspecificallyarrivedattheconclusionthatAnantdeowasinpossessionofthesuit
propertyandthesocalledtransferwaswithoutanylegalandfamilynecessityasallegedand,
therefore,theappellantswereentitledto2/3rdshareinthesuitproperty.Intherevenuerecords
also,thereisnomutationinfavourofBaburao.Further,thesocalledcompromisedecreein
CivilSuitNo.288of1981againstAnantdeoandMalatibaiwouldnotconferanytitleagainstthe
appellant.

10.Further,inasuitforpartitionwherepreliminarydecreeispassed,atthetimeofpassingof
thefinaldecreeitwasnotopentotherespondenttoraisethecontentionthathewasatenantof
thesuitpremises.Section97CPCspecificallyprovidesthatwhereanypartyaggrievedbythe
preliminarydecreedoesnotappealfromthesaiddecree,heisprecludedfromdisputingits
correctnessinanyappealwhichmaybepreferredfromthefinaldecree.

109.Inviewoftheaforesaid,wefindnoforceinthesubmissionsraisedonbehalfofthe
respondentsbaseduponpattedarrightsasitwassubjecttosection52ofT.P.Actandthesameis
herebyrejected.

(xi)Inre:whatistheeffectofdecisionofthisCourtandHighCourtwithrespecttofinal
decreeproceedingsinItemNo.2ofScheduleBproperty:

110.WithrespecttoitemNo.2ofPlaintBschedulepropertyonePadminiCooperative
HousingSocietyLtd.filedanobjectioninthefinaldecreeproceedings.Thetrialcourtvideorder
dated29.3.1996rejectedtheobjectionwhichwaspreferred.Firstappealpreferredwasalso
dismissedbyaSingleJudgeon23.4.1997.LPANo.104/1997wasfiledwhichwasdismissedby
aDivisionBenchoftheHighCourton20.11.1998.ThenSLP[C]No.3558/1999wasfiledin
thisCourtwhichhasbeendismissedbyaspeakingorderaffirmingthejudgmentandorder
passedbytheexecutingcourtandtheHighCourt.AperusalofthejudgmentoftheHighCourt
inLPAindicatesthattheHighCourthadheldthatinMohammedanLawthereisnorecognition
forasalebyacoshareroftheentireestateandthattheothercosharersarenotboundbysuch
saleandsaiddecisionevenwenttotheextentofsayingthatevenwhenthesalewasmeantfor
dischargingthedebtsofancestor,whosepropertyhaddevolveduponthesharers,thesaidsale
withouttheconsentofothercosharersisinvalidanddoesnotconferanyrightonthepurchaser
withregardtosuchcosharerswhodonotjointhesaidsale.Thedecisionhasbeenaffirmedby
thisCourtvideorderdated1.10.1999inSLP[C]No.3558/1999.Followingorderwaspassedby
thisCourt:

Afterhearingargumentsexhaustivelyformorethantwohoursandafterconsideringthe
preliminarydecreedated24.11.70,themodifiedpreliminarydecreepassedbytheHighCourt,
theCommissioner'sreportdated14.7.95,finaldecreepassedbytheCityCivilCourtdated
11.2.96,thejudgmentofthelearnedSingleJudgedated23.4.97,thejudgmentoftheDivision
Benchdated24.11.93andtheotherpassedbytheHighCourtinCRP.No.700/94dated30.8.94
andafterconsideringthevariousrulingsoftheCourtscitedbeforeusbythelearnedsenior
counselonbothsides,wearenotinclinedtointerferewithinSLP.TheSLPisdismissed.

111.AtleastonpointoflawthedecisionofthisCourtbeingareasonedorderhasrelevanceand
thedecisionintheaforesaidmatterinsamecasealsosupportstheviewwhichhasbeentakenby
usonmerits.

(xii)Inre:whetherthereiswaiverofrightbyappellants:

112.Itwasalsosubmittedthatonbehalfoftherespondentsthatthereiswaiverofrightsbythe
plaintiffandotherheirsofLateNawabJungwithrespecttodisputedproperty,andtheycannot
bepermittedtoapprobateandreprobate.InBoddamNarsimha(supra),standwastakenthatBala
Mallaiahwasthepattedar,thus,theyareboundbytheirsaidrepresentationandcannotwriggle
outofit.TheyhaverelieduponthedecisioninC.Beepathumav.VelasariShankaranarayana
KadambolithayaAIR1965SC241ontheprincipleofapprobateandreprobateasalsothe
decisioninMumbaiInternationalAirport(P)Ltd.v.GoldenChariotAirport(2010)10SCC422
inwhichithasbeenobservedthatthecontestingrespondenthasblownhotandcoldbytaking
inconsistentstandswhichisnotpermissible.

113.Infact,duringthependencyofthepartitionsuitwithrespecttoancestralpropertyofLate
NawabJang,HamidAliKhandefendantNo.1hadalienatedthepropertytreatingitashis
ownwhereasitwasobviouslysubjecttotherightofothercosharesfinallydeclaredinthe
preliminarydecree.BalaMallaiahandhissuccessorshavefiledseveralproceedings,civilsuitof
1993inwhichtheyhavefailed.BoddamNarsimha,nephewofBalaMallaiahalsofiled
proceedingsundertheActof1950forissuanceofownershipcertificatebyvirtueoftheirbeing
protectedtenantswhichcasewasalsodismissed.Thus,thestandwhichwastakenbyappellants
undertheprotectedTenancyActwasnotatallinconsistentanddidnotamounttoapprobation
andreprobationonthepartoftheheirsofLateNawabJung.Landgrabbingproceedingswere
alsoinstitutedbyLRs.ofBalaMallaiahandhisbrothers.Theproceedingsweredismissedand
W.P.No.15577/2001filedbeforetheHighCourtwasalsodismissedvideorderdated30.1.2002.
Afterhavinglostintheaforesaidproceedings,belatedlytheobjectionhadbeenpreferredinthe
finaldecreeproceedingsforpartition.Theconductofpurchasersmakesitclearthatthey
institutedmultifariousproceedings,andtookinconsistentstandswhichwerenotacceptedbythis
CourtinBoddamNarsimha(supra).Theappellantsortheirpredecessorshadnottaken
inconsistentstands.Theywereclearlyprotectedbydoctrineoflispendens.

(xiii)Inre:whetherappellantsareguiltyofdelayorlaches:

114.Itwasalsosubmittedthatapreliminarydecreerecognizedtherightsofthetransfereestobe
adjudicatedatthetimeoffinaldecreeproceedingsandnostepsweretakenbythelegalheirs
afterpassingofthepreliminarydecreewaybackin1970toimpleadthem.Theproceedingsfor
finaldecreewereinitiatedintheyear1984.Theappellantshavenottakenpromptsteps,assuch
theyarenotentitledtoanyindulgencefromthisCourt.Reliancehasbeenplacedupon
MunicipalCouncil,Ahmednagarv.ShahHyderBeig(2000)2SCC48tocontendthatanydelay
onthepartofthepartiesdefeatstherights.

115.Wearenotimpressedbyanyoftheaforesaidsubmissions.Thepreliminarydecreepassed
in1970wasclearlyagainsttheinterestofthepurchasersastheirvendorwasnotfoundtohave
therightswhichwasnotassailedbythem.Thepreliminarydecreeattainedfinalityintheyear
1976andproceedingsforfinaldecreetakenin1984werewithintheperiodoflimitation.Asa
matteroffact,LRs.ofBalaMallaiahandhisbrotheretc.tookstepsintheyear1993and
onwardsbyfilingsuccessivecasesasenumeratedabove.Therewasnodelayonthepartofthe
appellantsdefeatingtheirrights.Itwastherespondentswhohavinglostinthethreeproceedings
oneaftertheother,raisedobjectionintheyear2004inthefinaldecreeproceedings.What
preventedthemfromdoingsointheyear1993,hasnotatallbeenexplained.Thus,itisthey
whoareresponsibletodelayinthefinaldecreeproceedingsinapartitioncaseinstitutedinthe
year1935andthematterisstillpendingintheshapeofinstantappealsbeforethisCourt.

(xiv)Inre:theeffectundertheUrbanLandCeilingAct:
116.ItwasalsosubmittedthatundertheUrbanLandCeilingActproceedings,thelandwasnot
showntobebelongingtotheheirsofLateNawabJung.Theorderspassedinurbanlandceiling
casehavenotbeenplacedonrecord.Thatapart,itwasstatedthattheproceedingslapseddueto
repealofUrbanLandCeilingAct.Bethatasitmay.Therespondentsarepurchasersfrombranch
ofBalaMallaiahwhosevendorwasdefendantNo.1.Thepropertyhasfurtherexchangedhands.
Sincetheordershavenotbeenplacedonrecord,intheaforesaidfactualscenario,wedeclineto
examinetheaforesaidpropositionfurtherandwewerenotapprisedhowthepurchaserscould
claimabetterrightthantheonepossessedbytheirvendor.WeleaveitopentotheState
Governmenttoexaminethequestionofceilingandeffectofthedecision.

117.Acompromisepetitionhasbeenfiledwithrespecttoarea18acres25guntas.Asperthe
compromisethedivisionofthepropertyhastotakeplacebetweentheappellantsandthenewly
addedrespondentNos.87to127.Samewasobjectedtobyoneofheirs.Itwillinvolvetransfer
oftheproperty,hence,weleavethepartiestohaveresorttoanappropriateremedyinthisregard.
Itisfoundnottoberecordableintheformoftransactioninwhichithasbeenfiled.

118.Resultantly,theappealsareallowed.ImpugnedjudgmentanddecreepassedbytheHigh
Courtissetaside.ThefinaldecreeoftheTrialCourtisrestored.CostsofRs.1,00,000/tobe
paidwithintwomonthsfromtoday.

Go Back to List of Latest Judgments