AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Mithal and Shashi Kant, JJ.—Heard Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent no. 1 is represented by Sri Bharat Garg, Advocate. Service of notice upon respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 is deemed to be sufficient, but none has put in appearance on their behalf.
The dispute in the suit is whether suit property is joint which has been purchased from common funds in the name of the appellant or is the exclusive property of the appellant?
The plaintiff/respondent no. 1 is claiming only ?th share in the said property.
The Court below in view of the claim of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 by the impugned order dated 16.09.2013 has restrained the appellant from transferring ?th portion of the property in dispute.
The question whether property is joint or is the exclusive property of the appellant, is to be adjudicated upon by the Court at first instance on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. Therefore, during the pendency of such a litigation, in view of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, none of the parties are free to transfer and create any third party right in the suit property without leave of the Court.
In view of above, if the Court below has restrained the appellant from transferring ?th portion of the disputed land as claimed by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1, no illegality has been committed so as to adversely effect the rights of the appellant. The order of interim injunction passed by the court below therefore is not liable to be distrubed.
Since the suit is of the year 2009, it is expected that the court below will proceed and decide the same in accordance with law, most expeditiously by curtailing all unnecessary adjournments and fixing short dates. In case any adjournment becomes necessary it should be allowed by imposing a cost of at least Rs.500/- per adjournment.
The appeal is disposed of with above directions.