Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a family settlement involving the property of Janak Singh, who had adopted Gurdial Singh as his son. Janak Singh's daughter had three sons: Gurdial Singh, Jeevan Singh, and Pritam Singh. On 27.06.1930, Janak Singh, Gurdial Singh, Jeevan Singh, and Pritam Singh executed a registered family settlement deed recognizing all four as co-sharers, with property meant to be preserved within the family. After Janak Singh's death, a partition suit was filed in 1948 by Jeevan Singh and Pritam Singh against Gurdial Singh, and a preliminary decree was passed on 07.04.1950. On 29.07.1977, the trial court passed a restraint order prohibiting all parties from alienating or transferring any part of the suit property. Despite this order, Pritam Singh assigned his rights under the preliminary decree on 06.06.1979 by a registered deed, partly in favour of the wife of his lawyer and partly to others. The assignees then applied under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking impleadment as parties to the suit. The trial court allowed the impleadment, the Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal of Gurdial Singh and Jeevan Singh, and the High Court dismissed the revision petition in limine. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the assignment made in violation of the restraint order could confer any right on the assignees to be impleaded. The appellants contended that the assignment was void due to the clear violation of the restraint order, while the assignees argued that assignment of a decree was not alienation of property and that the settlement deed did not bind Pritam Singh from alienating. The Court chose not to examine the interpretation of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the settlement deed, observing that the assignment was made by a registered deed relating to immovable property and was therefore property per se, clearly falling within the ambit of the restraint order. The Court held that when a court intends a particular state of affairs to exist during the pendency of a lis, that state of affairs must be maintained and presumed to exist until the court orders otherwise. The Court had the duty and right to treat the alienation/assignment as having not taken place at all for its purposes. Consequently, the assignees could not be impleaded, and the lower courts had erred in interpreting the settlement deed instead of giving effect to the restraint order. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal with costs, set aside all three orders, and rejected the impleadment application. It directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, before the summer vacation of 1996, and requested the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to depute its Registrar to oversee the proceedings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Assignee - Order 22 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Assignment of a preliminary decree for immovable property is transfer of property and falls within court's restraint order against alienation - Trial court's order allowing impleadment of assignees who acquired rights in defiance of injunction was set aside; assignees had no cause to be impleaded - Held that assignment/alienation made in violation of court order is non est for purposes of suit (Paras 1-3) B) Civil Procedure - Effect of Breach of Injunction - Court's Duty to Maintain Status Quo - Assignment executed contrary to trial court's restraint order dated 29.07.1977 was treated as having not taken place at all - Court has duty and right to ignore such alienation to uphold ends of justice and public policy - Held that assignees cannot assert rights based on void assignment (Paras 1-3) C) Property Law - Transfer of Decree - Decree as Property - A decree relating to immovable property worth more than Rs. 100 requires registration if assigned, and when registered it is per se property relating to immovable property - Such assignment still subject to court's injunction; lower courts erred in interpreting settlement deed paras 13 and 14 instead of giving effect to restraint order - Held that no need to interpret settlement deed once assignment held non est (Paras 1-3) D) Civil Procedure - Revision/Appeal - Scope of Interference - Trial court, Additional District Judge and High Court exceeded bounds by interpreting settlement deed instead of confining to effect of violation of restraint order - Supreme Court set aside all three orders and rejected impleadment application - Directed trial court to expedite suit and High Court Registrar to oversee progress (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an assignment of a preliminary decree made in defiance of a court's restraint order can entitle the assignees to be impleaded as parties under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal with costs, set aside the orders of the trial court, Additional District Judge, and High Court, and rejected the assignees' application for impleadment under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. The Court directed the trial court to dispose of the partition suit expeditiously, in all events before the onset of summer vacation of 1996, with day-to-day hearing if necessary, and requested the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to depute its Registrar to oversee the suit's progress. No orders were passed in the special leave petition and contempt petition.
Law Points
- Assignment of preliminary decree for immovable property is transfer of property and subject to restraint order
- alienation in violation of court order treated non est
- assignees cannot be impleaded under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC
- court has duty to maintain status quo during pendency of suit
- lower courts should not interpret settlement deed when assignment void due to injunction violation.
