SURJIT SINGH AND ORS ETC. ETC. versus HARBANS SINGH AND ORS ETC. ETC.

SURJIT SINGH AND ORS ETC. ETC. versus HARBANS SINGH AND ORS ETC. ETC.

Assignment of decree was made in violation of trial court's restraint order prohibiting alienation or transfer of suit property, therefore the assignment is non est and assignees have no cause to be impleaded; courts below erred in entertaining question of assignment or interpretation of settlement deed's restrictions.

Parties
Appellant: Surjit Singh and Others; Respondent: Harbans Singh and Others; Advocate: B.N. Naik; Advocate: R.C. Mishra (Dr. Meera Aggarwal) for Aggarwal Mishra & Co.; Advocate: K.B. Rohtagi; Advocate: Ms. Aparna Rohtagi; Advocate: J.C. Nagpal; Advocate: Satish Viz; Advocate: Manoj Swarup
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 September 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision From High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Assignment of Decree, Alienation During Partition Suit, Restraint Orders, Impleadment Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC
Civil Procedure Property Law Assignment of Decree Alienation During Partition Suit Restraint Orders Impleadment Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surjit Singh and Others

Appellant

Harbans Singh and Others

Respondent

B.N. Naik

Advocate

R.C. Mishra (Dr. Meera Aggarwal) for Aggarwal Mishra & Co.

Advocate

K.B. Rohtagi

Advocate

Ms. Aparna Rohtagi

Advocate

J.C. Nagpal

Advocate

Satish Viz

Advocate

Manoj Swarup

Advocate

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision From High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether assignment of rights under a preliminary partition decree during pendency of restraint order is valid
  2. 2 Whether assignees become entitled to be impleaded as parties under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC

Ratio Decidendi

Assignment of decree was made in violation of trial court's restraint order prohibiting alienation or transfer of suit property, therefore the assignment is non est and assignees have no cause to be impleaded; courts below erred in entertaining question of assignment or interpretation of settlement deed's restrictions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Application for impleadment of assignees under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC rejected
  • All three orders of courts below set aside