C. R. No. 2731 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2731 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 15, 2009 Gajender Singh Chauhan .... Petitioner Vs. Sant Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I. K. Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. R. K. Dogra, Advocate for respondent no.1. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by plaintiff, who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below in securing temporary injunction. The petitioner has alleged that he is owner in possession of the suit land having purchased the same from respondents no.2 to 9 (legal heirs of Bed Ram since deceased) through their General Power of Attorney holder Dr. Rishi Chauhan vide registered sale deed dated 21.06.2005, but defendant no.1 claims title in the suit land on the basis of agreement to sell dated 02.06.2001 and Will dated 04.06.2001 allegedly executed in his favour by Bed Ram since deceased. C. R. No. 2731 of 2009 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The plaintiff sought temporary injunction restraining defendant-respondent no.1 from interfering in the plaintiff's possession over the suit land and from alienating the suit land till disposal of the suit. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon vide order dated 05.03.2007 dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred by the plaintiff also stands dismissed vide judgment dated 06.02.2009 by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. As regards possession, prima facie the plaintiff cannot be said to be in possession of the suit land because he claims possession on the basis of sale deed dated 21.06.2005 executed by legal heirs of Bed Ram but Bed Ram during his lifetime, vide agreement dated 02.06.2001, had transferred possession of the suit land to defendant no.1, and therefore, defendants no.2 to 9 themselves being not in possession of the suit land, could not have transferred possession thereof to the plaintiff. As regards alienation also, for the reasons noticed in the preceding paragraph, the plaintiff cannot be said to be having a prima facie case. He will also not suffer any irreparable loss or injury because the transferee pendente lite would be bound by the decree, that may be passed in the suit, in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Balance of convenience is also not in favour of the plaintiff because defendant no.1 is transferee prior in time. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that alienation pendente lite would create complication and multiple litigation. Although the contention cannot be accepted because the transferee would be bound by the decree to be passed in the suit in view of doctrine of lis pendens, yet as a matter of abundant caution, defendant no.1 is directed to inform the alienee by recital in the conveyance deed about pendency of the C. R. No. 2731 of 2009 3 suit so that the alienee may not take plea of ignorance of the suit or being bona fide purchaser. Subject to aforesaid direction to defendant no.1, the revision petition is dismissed. May 15, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE