Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeal, Rules Doctrine of Lis Pendens Inapplicable in Collusive Proceedings

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal and upheld the decision of the lower court in a contentious land dispute case. The case, RSA-423 of 1997 (O&M), centered around a dispute between the plaintiffs, Jarnail Singh and others, and the defendants, Darbara Singh and others.

The plaintiffs had filed a suit seeking a declaration that an order passed by the High Court in 1986 was collusive and should not be binding on their ownership rights. According to the plaintiffs, they had acquired the land in question through legitimate sale deeds and had been in possession of it ever since. They argued that the mutation of inheritance in favor of the defendants was null and void.

However, the defendants vehemently denied the allegations and raised legal objections in their written statements. They contended that the plaintiffs’ purchase of the land was affected by the doctrine of lis pendens, which holds that the transfer of property during pending litigation is subject to the outcome of the case. The defendants argued that the High Court’s decree, based on the doctrine of lis pendens, was valid.

After careful consideration of the pleadings and evidence presented, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The court decreed the suit, granting the defendants the liberty to file a fresh suit for possession based on a registered will dated 21.01.1973.

Unsatisfied with the trial court’s decision, the defendant Darbara Singh appealed to the District Judge. However, the District Judge affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding no reason to overturn it.

Subsequently, Darbara Singh approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing a Regular Second Appeal. The case was assigned to Justice H.S. Madaan, who thoroughly examined the arguments and records of the case.

During the proceedings, the court observed that the doctrine of lis pendens was not applicable in this particular case due to the collusive nature of the proceedings before the High Court. The court further noted that the defendants had failed to file any suit based on the registered will dated 21.01.1973, raising questions about its legitimacy.

After careful deliberation, Justice H.S. Madaan dismissed the appeal. The court held that the lower court’s judgments were based on concurrent findings, and there was no substantial question of law to warrant overturning them.

Decided on: 01.05.2023

Darbara Singh (since deceased) through his LRs vs Jarnail Singh and others

 

Latest Legal News