Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – ss.52 and 41 – Transaction hit by lis pendens – Agreement to sell property between Appellant and Respondent No.3-owner – Appellant paid earnest money – Later, filed suit for injunction – Injunction order in favour of Appellant – Same day, Respondent No.3 executed release deed in favour of Respondent no.4 who executed sale deed in favour of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 – Suit for specific performance by Appellant – Erroneously dismissed by High Court – Order of temporary injunction was operating when transactions qua the suit property were executed by respondents – Respondents 1-2 (subsequent purchasers) bound by lis pendens and cannot claim to be bonafide purchasers, in peculiar facts of the case – Not entitled to protection u/s.52.
Held: 1. Explanation to s.52 clarifies that pendency of a suit shall be deemed to have commenced from the date on which the plaintiff presents the plaint – Further, that such pendency would extend till a final decree is passed and such decree is realised – In the present case, the release deed was executed after the suit for temporary injunction was filed by the appellant, hence, the release made by respondent no.3 in favour of respondent no.4 would be covered by the doctrine of lis pendens – Respondent no. 4 executed the registered sale deed in favour of respondents 1-2 during the operation of the temporary injunction order – Thus, the alienation made by respondents, cannot operate against the interests of the appellant considering he had obtained an order of temporary injunction in his favour – Subsequent purchasers will be bound by doctrine of lis pendens and cannot claim they are bonafide purchasers because they were not aware of the injunction order, looking at the peculiar facts of the present case. [Paras 19, 20, 22]
2. Release Deed executed by respondent no. 3 in favour of respondent no. 4 and the Sale Deed executed by respondent no. 4 in favour of respondents 1-2 is without any legal sanctity – Alienation made by respondents cannot operate to the disadvantage of the appellant – Respondent no.3 directed to accept the balance sale consideration from the appellant and execute the agreement to sell in favour of the appellant. [Paras 24, 25] Doctrines/ Principles – Principle of lis pendens as enshrined u/s.52 – Applicability – In the State of Punjab – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – ss.52 and 1.
Held: By virtue of s.1 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the provisions of the said Act are not applicable in the States of Punjab, Delhi or Bombay; subject, of course to certain exceptions – However, even if s.52 is not applicable in its strict sense in the present case (where subject land situated in Punjab) then too the principles of lis-pendens, which are based on justice, equity and good conscience, would certainly be applicable. [Para 17] Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.52, Explanation to – Pendency of suit commences from date on which the plaintiff presents the suit.
Held: Explanation to s.52 clarifies that pendency of a suit shall be deemed to have commenced from the date on which the plaintiff presents the suit i.e. the date of presentation of plaint or institution of proceedings in court of competent jurisdiction.– Further, such pendency would extend till a final decree is passed and such decree is realised. [Para 18]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Harshit Anand, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.