Surila Devi v. Smti. Jagrithi Devi And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ....

PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS MAT/38/2024 Surila Devi Vs.

Smt Jagrithi Devi and others For the appellant : Ms. A.S. Zinu, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. K.M.B Jayapal, Advocate Heard on : 7 October 2024 Judgment on : 8 November 2024 RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.

1. This is an appeal against an order dated 24 June 2024 directing the respondent no. 2 authority to register a sale deed dated 6 December 2018 entered into by and between the private respondent nos.1 and 4.

2. Briefly, the writ petitioner and the respondent no.1 are descendants of one Jagat Ram who was the recorded tenant of a plot of land bearing Survey No. 290/1, 291/1 measuring an area of 0.02 hectares classified as house site respectively situated at Garacharma Village under Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman District.

3. Originally, the premises had been allotted to the said Jagat Ram by the respondent Administration. Upon expiry of the said Jagat Ram, the appellant had filed a partition suit being Title Suit No. 46 of 2014 impleading the private respondent no.1 as a party defendant. Pursuant thereto, the Learned Civil Judge had passed an interim order of status quo as regards possession, nature and character of the suit property which is still subsisting. Subsequently, on 29 September 2016, the private respondent no.1 had also consented to the order of status quo being extended. The suit is at the stage of evidence and is pending final disposal.

4. During the pendency of the suit and the continuance of the above order of status quo, the private respondents have attempted to register a sale deed executed by and between the private respondent no.1 and one Shri K. Sakthi the respondent no.4 herein, a third party to the above partition suit. Admittedly, the subject matter of the sale deed pertains to the suit premises. Upon presentation of the deed for registration, the respondent authorities had in view of the order of status quo refused to register the same. In such circumstances, this writ petition had been filed inter-alia seeking directions on the authorities to register the sale deed.

5. By the impugned order, the Learned Single Judge has permitted registration of the sale deed on the ground that there was no specific order of injunction prohibiting the private respondents from registering the same. As such, the respondent authorities were bound to register the same and erred in not doing so. In support of such conclusion, reliance has been

placed on an unreported decision passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 17 July 2019 in MA No. 19 of 2019 in Miss Rafique-unNisha vs. The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others and Kishore Kumar Khaitan and Another vs. Praveen Kumar Singh, (2006) 3 SCC 312.

6. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that, in passing the impugned order the Learned Single Judge erred in ignoring the scope of the order of status quo which expressly covered possession, nature and character of the suit premises. It is contended that the private respondent no.1 was not only a party to the suit but has also consented to the order of status quo being extended. It is further contended that the principle enshrined in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which has been relied on has no application whatsoever in view of the order of status quo in respect of possession, nature and character of the suit premises and is binding on the parties. The entire exercise to register the sale deed is an unlawful attempt to circumvent the order of status quo and is in violation of the same. In such circumstances, the respondent authorities were fully justified in refusing to register the sale deed and the Learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition.

7. On behalf of the private respondent no. 1, it is submitted that since there was no specific bar nor injunction restraining the respondent no. 1 from executing the sale deed, the principle of lis pendens is squarely applicable and the respondent Tehsildar had no authority to refuse registration. In support of such contention, reliance is placed on the decisions in Miss

Rafique-un-Nisha vs. The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others (Supra) and Kishore Kumar Khaitan and Another vs. Praveen Kumar Singh, (Supra).

8. On behalf of the respondent Administration, it is submitted that in view of the order of status quo pertaining to the subject premises, there is no question of registration of any sale deed.

9. Indisputably, the principle of lis pendens is applicable in each and every case where a party deals with the suit premises during the pendency of the suit. The doctrine of lis pendens is intended to strike at attempts by parties to a litigation to circumvent the jurisdiction of a Court in which the dispute on rights or interests in immovable property is pending, by private dealings that may remove the subject matter of litigation from the ambit of the power of the Court to decide a pending dispute or which may frustrate any ultimate decree. However, in this case there is admittedly an order of status quo subsisting in respect of possession, nature and character of the suit premises. In this background, any attempt of the private respondent to register any sale deed is in the teeth of such order of status quo and would obviously alter the status quo and be in violation thereof.

10. The decision cited on behalf of the private respondent in Miss Rafique-unNisha vs. The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others (Supra) is inapplicable. In the said decision, there was no reference nor discussion of an order of status quo. There is no quarrel with the general proposition of law laid down in the said decision. It is true that in any suit for declaration

and consequential injunction, the principle of lis pendens would be applicable. However, in view of the express order of status quo passed by the Civil Court governing the parties, any attempt on the part of the respondent no. 1 or the respondent no.4 to register the sale deed would tantamount to violation thereof.

11. In view of the above, the impugned order is unsustainable and set aside. MAT/38/2024 stands allowed. Liberty is granted to the private respondent to make an appropriate application for vacating or modification or variation of the interim order dated 29 September 2016 passed in Title Suit No.46 of 2014 in accordance with law, if so advised.

12. Urgent certified server copies, if applied for, be issued to the parties upon compliance with all formalities.

( Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) I agree.

( Prasenjit Biswas, J.)