Judgment:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. A brief background of the facts of this case would furnish the reason for the order that we propose to pass in disposing of the appeals.
3. The appellant before us (hereinafter referred to as the society) had filed a suit in 1984 against Iqbailunnisa Begum and three others, being the widow and children of one Syed Hussain praying for specific performance of an agreement to sell certain properties to the society. The suit was decreed on 8.4.87 against defendants 1, 2 and 4 it was dismissed against the defendant No. 5 who was the power of attorney holder of defendant No. 1, Iqbailunnisa Begum, and no relief had been claimed against her. No decree was passed against the respondent No. 3 who had died. The appeal preferred by Iqbailunnisa Begum from the decree dated 8.4.87 was dismissed and the special leave petition filed by her against such dismissal was also dismissed by this Court.
4. The second chapter started with the filing of suit in 1987 by Syed Ali Hussain the son of Syed Hussain and Iqbailunnisa against her mother and 14 others including the society, which was named as defendant No. 15. In that suit, Syed Ali Hussain has claimed that the deed of sale executed pursuant to the decree for specific performance was not binding on him and has also prayed for partition of the joint family properties, including the property in respect of which specific performance had been granted in favour of the society. This suit was dismissed on 30.7.98 by the trial court.
5. During the pendency of Syed Ali Hussain's suit, other persons claiming to be the heirs of Syed Hussain filed a suit (being OS 573 of 1993) claiming similar reliefs as had been claimed by Syed Ali Hussain in his suit filed in 1987. When Syed Ali Hussain's suit was dismissed on 30.7.98 not only Syed Ali Hussain but also the plaintiffs in OS 573 of 1993 preferred appeals therefrom. The appeals were allowed by the division bench of the High Court only on the ground that the issues in both the suits were common and therefore, directed consolidation of both the suits and their analogous disposal. The society, which is now in appeal before us, does not have any objection to this particular part of the order relating to the remand of the suit, as directed by the division bench. The society is aggrieved however, by the portion of the order directing the society not to change the nature of the suit property.
6. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the High Court ought not to have granted a blanket injunction against the society particularly when the society's right to specific performance atleast against some of the heirs of Syed Hussain had been upheld right up to this Court, pursuant to which the agreement for sale has been executed and the society has been put in possession. The court should not in these circumstances have restrained the society in exercising its right to ownership with regard thereto. At the same time, since the matter relating the validity of the sale is pending adjudication, it will be only appropriate to direct the society to mention the fact of the pendency of the proceedings initiated by those claiming to be the heirs of Syed Hussain in any agreement for sale of any portion or any part of the property of any structure thereon to prospective purchasers. In other words, all purchasers or alienees of the property purchased by the society are to be put on express notice that the title of the society to the property was in dispute. It is also made clear that this order is also subject to the undertaking given by the society that in the event the suits challenging the sale deed in favour of the society are decided against the society, this order will not operate to create any equity in favour of the society and the society's right to the property and alienation thereof will be subject to the final order that may be passed in those suits with regard to the title to the property.
7. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.