SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 2293, 2315 and 4003 of 2015 as the facts involved therein are identical and the orders impugned are also the same.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute.Harjinder Kaur executed three separate registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioners on 18/8/2006 in respect of three separate parcels of land. Based thereupon, the petitioners applied for entry of mutation and mutation dtd. 31/8/2006 was entered. This was challenged by respondents No. 2 and 3 by way of appeal and the appeal was allowed vide order dtd. 30/1/2007 on the ground that the sale had been executed in violation of an order of status quo dtd. 6/8/2003 passed by the civil Court in a suit for declaration filed by the brothers-in-law of the vendor that property subject matter thereof was joint hindu family property. Revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed vide order dtd. 17/9/2008 and second revision was dismissed vide order dtd. 13/8/2013. The petitioners sought review of the order dtd. 13/8/2013 on the basis of an order dtd. 9/12/2011 passed by the civil Court whereby the civil suit referred to earlier had been dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the review was rejected vide order dtd. 19/8/2014 and, thus, the present writ petitions have been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that stay order granted by a Court does not deprive the vendor of his tittle. Thus, the registered sale deed executed by the vendor conveys valid title unless and until it is found that the said vendor's title was defective. No such fact/evidence is on record. Even the stay order dtd. 6/8/2003 has ceased to exist with the dismissal of the civil suit on 9/12/2011 and, thus, the Financial Commissioner was in error in refusing to review his order.