VED PARKASH Vs. PARSHOTTAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenging order dated 25.7.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda. The application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code during the pendency of appeal preferred by him against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1995 has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case which have led to the filing of the instant petition are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against defendant-respondent 2 who is his brother and one Parshottam Dass restraining them from alienating half share of House No. 1504 situated in Gali No. 2, Nai Basti, Bhatinda. The claim of the plaintiff- petitioner was based on an alleged family settlement. It was further claimed that defendant-respondent 2 Dharam Paul who had entered into an agreement to sell the disputed house in favour of defendant-respondent 1 Parshottam Dass had no right to alienate half share which has vested in the plaintiff- appellant by virtue of the family settlement.

(3.) MR . Rajneesh Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the claim of the petitioner has been admitted by defendant-respondent 2 Dharam Paul (now represented by his legal representatives), there was no occasion for the plaintiff-petitioner to claim a relief of declaration with regard to his title. The learned counsel has further argued that before 1.7.1997, the agreement to sell would not have conferred any title or right of defendant-respondent 1 Parshottam Dass. The learned counsel has also pointed out that the plaintiff-petitioner has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code for becoming a party in the suit filed by plaintiff-responedent 1 Parshottam Dass against defendant-respondent 2 Dharam Paul but he was not allowed to join and his application was dismissed. Therefore, the findings recorded in the aforementioned judgment and decree could not bind him. According to the learned counsel, the proposed amendment goes to the very roots of the matter and would enable the Court to finally, completely and effectively adjudicate upon the controversy raised between the parties. Even otherwise, the learned counsel has pointed out that the judgment and decree passed in the suit filed by Parshottam Dass defendant-respondent 1 would attract the application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 laying down the principle of lis pendens.