Dhanna Singh Vs. Baljinder Kaur On 04 April, 1997

Q: Q. What are the equivalent citations for Dhanna Singh vs Baljinder Kaur ?

The equivalence citation are1997 -3-LW 36 ; 1997 -3-LW 6 ; [1997] 3 SCR 651 ; (1997) 5 SCC 476 ; AIR 1997 SC 3720 ; (1997) 2 MLJ 137 (SC) ; 1997 (1) CTC 767 ; 1997 (2) RCR (CIVIL) 701 ; JT 1997 (5) SC 103 ; (1998) 1 PLR 706 ; 1997 (3) SCALE 747 ; 2 (1997) CLT 366 ; LQ/SC/1997/643 ;

Q: Q. What was the bench assigned for the case Dhanna Singh vs Baljinder Kaur ?

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMASWAMY, HONBLE MR. JUSTICE G.B. PATTANAIK

Open iDraf

Dhanna Singh v. Baljinder Kaur

Dhanna Singh
v.
Baljinder Kaur

(Supreme Court Of India)

Civil Appeal No. 3001 Of 1997 (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13758 Of 1996) | 04-04-1997

G.B. Pattanaik, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, made on May 22, 1996 in C.R. No. 4333/1995.

3. The undisputed facts are that the respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction with the following prayer :

"It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction over any specific portion of the property detailed in the heading of the plaint, and also restraining the defendants from filling any part of the property by sand and also restraining the defendants from alienating any specific portion of the property and also restraining the defendants from transferring the possession of the property without the same being partitioned between the parties to the suit; may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants with costs and any other relief which the Honble Court may deem fit be also granted."

4. Pending the suit, though several opportunities were given, no evidence was adduced by the defendant. The Court passed an order on September 22, 1995 foreclosing the evidence of the defendant on the statement of the counsel that the first defendant was not willing to lead any evidence. An application for impleadment was filed earlier by the appellant who is a subsequent purchaser from the first defendant. After impleadment, he filed application for abduction of evidence which was rejected. Thus this appeal.

5. The undisputed fact is that in the plaint the plaintiff-respondent had already sought for a reliefs of injunction of alienation, yet the alienation came to be made. Apart from the doctrine of lis pendense under Section 52 of the T.P. Act, the subsequent purchaser does not get any right to lead to any evidence, as he stepped into the shoes of the first defendant, who had given up the right to lead evidence. In view of these circumstances, he does not get any right to lead any evidence.

6. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

Advocates List

For the Appellant Ms. Dhruv Mehta, Mr. S.K. Mehta and Mr. Fazlin Anam, Advocates. For the Respondent Mr. Sudhir Walia and Mr. Mahinder Singh Dahiya, Advocates.

Bench List

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMASWAMY

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.B. PATTANAIK

Eq Citation

1997 -3-LW 36

1997 -3-LW 6

[1997] 3 SCR 651

(1997) 5 SCC 476

AIR 1997 SC 3720

(1997) 2 MLJ 137 (SC)

1997 (1) CTC 767

1997 (2) RCR (CIVIL) 701

JT 1997 (5) SC 103

(1998) 1 PLR 706

1997 (3) SCALE 747

2 (1997) CLT 366

LQ/SC/1997/643

HeadNote

A. Specific Relief Act, 1877 — S. 52 — Doctrine of lis pendens — Application of — Appellant subsequent purchaser from first defendant — First defendant had given up right to lead evidence — Held, apart from doctrine of lis pendens under S. 52, subsequent purchaser does not get any right to lead any evidence as he stepped into shoes of first defendant who had given up right to lead evidence — Limitation Act, 1963, Art. 11