"High Court Decrees Specific Performance; Doctrine of Lis Pendens Applied to Override Subsequent Sale" "Litigation pendente lite affects all subsequent alienations, regardless of notice to the purchaser."

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court’s decision that allowed the specific performance of a sale agreement. The High Court applied the doctrine of lis pendens, ruling that Defendant No. 2 was not a bona fide purchaser as the sale deed executed during the pendency of the suit could not override the earlier agreement. The decision emphasized that the doctrine of lis pendens applies irrespective of the purchaser's knowledge of the pending litigation.

Acts and Sections Discussed: Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 52: Doctrine of Lis Pendens Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 Order 41 Rule 22: Cross Objection Requirements Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 19: Enforcement of Specific Performance Ratio:

The Court affirmed that the doctrine of lis pendens prevents subsequent purchasers from claiming title free of encumbrances when they purchase property during the pendency of litigation. Furthermore, even if a subsequent purchaser is bona fide, they are bound by the decree issued in the pending suit.

Subjects:

Doctrine of Lis Pendens, Bona Fide Purchaser

#SpecificPerformance #LisPendens #PropertyLaw #BonaFidePurchaser #TransferOfPropertyAct

Introduction:

Defendant No. 2 challenges the High Court's decree allowing specific performance, reversing the lower courts' concurrent decrees.

Background of the Suit:

Plaintiff sought specific performance of the sale agreement dated 17.08.1990 for land measuring 79 Kanals 09 Marlas, claiming readiness and willingness to perform his part.

Plaintiff's Presence and Defendant No. 1’s Non-performance:

Plaintiff presented himself at the Sub-Registrar’s office; Defendant No. 1 did not appear. Plaintiff filed the suit within 23 days.

Impleadment of Defendant No. 2:

Defendant No. 2 was impleaded after Defendant No. 1 sold the suit land during the pendency of the suit, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser.

Trial Court’s Findings:

The Trial Court acknowledged the agreement but denied specific performance, citing Defendant No. 2's status as a bona fide purchaser.

First Appellate Court’s Observations:

The appellate court upheld the Trial Court’s findings, concluding that the sale agreement was fraudulent and collusive.

High Court’s Application of Lis Pendens Doctrine:

The High Court reversed the decisions, applying the doctrine of lis pendens, finding that Defendant No. 2 was not a bona fide purchaser.

Arguments by Senior Counsel:

Appellant's counsel argued against the High Court’s interference; Respondent’s counsel justified the decree for specific performance.

Legal Provisions on Cross-Objections:

The Court analyzed Order 41 Rule 22 CPC, stating that the absence of cross-objections precluded the appellate court from finding fraud.

Application of Lis Pendens in Precedents:

Citing relevant cases, the Court established that lis pendens applies to transfers during litigation, irrespective of the purchaser’s notice. Court’s Analysis of Defendant No. 2’s Position: The doctrine of lis pendens barred Defendant No. 2 from claiming ownership as his purchase occurred during the suit's pendency. Sanction of Specific Performance: The High Court correctly decreed specific performance, finding the agreement genuine and Defendant No. 2 not protected by bona fide status. **Further Precedents Supporting the Application of Lis Pendens **: The judgment reinforced the doctrine’s applicability in similar specific performance cases. Impact of Lis Pendens on Bona Fide Purchasers: Even good faith purchasers cannot defeat the rights established under a prior pending suit when the doctrine applies. Conclusion: The High Court’s decree was affirmed; the appeal was dismissed based on the doctrine of lis pendens. Final Judgment: The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The High Court's decision for specific performance was upheld.