Supreme Court voids property assignment under restraint order, overturns lower court decisions. The Supreme Court held that the assignment of a registered decree related to immovable property, despite the restraint order, was void as it fell within ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The Supreme Court held that the assignment of a registered decree related to immovable property, despite the restraint order, was void as it fell within the order's scope. The assignees were not permitted to be impleaded as parties, and the lower courts' decisions were overturned. The Court directed the trial court to expedite the finalization of the suit before the summer vacation of 1996, with the High Court of Punjab and Haryana monitoring the progress. The appeal was allowed with costs, and no further orders were deemed necessary in related petitions.
Issues involved: Family settlement deed, interpretation of settlement deed, impleadment of parties, assignment of decree, restraint order violation, final decree for partition.
Family Settlement Deed: In 1930, a family settlement deed was executed by Janak Singh, Gurdial Singh, Jeevan Singh, and Pritam Singh, recognizing each other as co-sharers of Janak Singh's properties. The deed prohibited alienation of property without consent and aimed to preserve the property within the family for generations.
Partition Suit: After Janak Singh's demise, a suit for partition was filed in 1948 by Jeevan Singh and Pritam Singh against Gurdial Singh. A preliminary decree was passed in 1950, and a restraint order was issued in 1977, prohibiting alienation of the property involved in the suit.
Assignment of Decree: Pritam Singh assigned his rights under the preliminary decree in 1979, despite the restraint order. The assignees sought impleadment as parties to the suit, arguing that the assignment of a decree did not amount to property alienation.
Court's Decision: The Supreme Court held that the assignment, being of a registered decree related to immovable property, fell within the restraint order's ambit. The Court deemed the assignment void, maintaining the status quo. The assignees were not entitled to be impleaded as parties, and the lower courts' decisions were overturned.
Judicial Direction: Expressing concern over the prolonged litigation since 1948, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the suit's finalization before the summer vacation of 1996. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana was requested to monitor the suit's progress through its Registrar. The appeal was allowed with costs, and no further orders were necessary in related petitions.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
