Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.52 – Applicability of doctrine of lis pendens – Plaintiff filed a suit on 24.12.1992 seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.08.1990 in respect of the suit land – During the pendency of the suit, the present appellant/defendant no. 2 was impleaded on 25.01.1993 on the basis that defendant no. 1 executed a sale deed in his favour on 08.01.1993 in respect of the suit land on the basis of alleged agreement to sell dated 19.11.1990 – Trial Court dismissed the suit in respect of the specific performance but allowed the alternative prayer for recovery of Rs. 40,000/- with interest – First Appellate Court maintained the Trial Court’s judgment – However, the High Court opined that the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2/appellant was hit by doctrine of lis pendens and that defendant no. 2/appellant is not a bona fide purchaser – High Court passed a decree of specific performance – Justified or not: Held: In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the suit was filed on 24.12.1992 and the sale deed was executed on 08.01.1993 by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2/appellant during pendency of the suit – The doctrine of lis pendens as contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applies to a transaction during pendency of the suit – The Trial Court found execution of agreement to be proved and directed for refund of the amount of Rs. 40,000/- by defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff with further finding that the agreement dated 17.08.1990 was not a result of fraud and collusion – The defendant did not prefer any cross-appeal or cross-objections against the said partial decree and allowed the finding to become final – The plaintiff was non-suited only on the ground that defendant no. 2 had no notice of the agreement and is a bona fide purchaser – However, once sale agreement is proved and the subsequent sale was during pendency of the suit hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and passing a decree for specific performance – Thus, no error was committed by the High Court in rendering the judgment impugned. [Paras 15, 16]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. 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.