Summary
Transfers after institution of the purchaser’s injunction suit could not defeat his prior sale agreement and specific-performance claim. Lis pendens operated from presentation of the plaint, making the exact timing of the same-day injunction and release deed immaterial. Later purchasers could not rely on ignorance of the injunction or property improvements to defeat the claimant. The High Court’s refund-only relief was reversed and the specific-performance decree restored.
Issues
- Whether pendente lite transfers defeated the prior purchaser’s specific-performance rights.
- Whether later purchasers could claim bona fide protection without knowledge of the injunction.
- Whether subsequent improvements supplied a compensable property claim.
Provisions considered
- Section 52 and its equitable principle, Transfer of Property Act, 1882Pendency starts with presentation of the plaint. The doctrine bound the later transfers on these facts; its justice-and-equity principle applied even assuming the provision did not directly extend to the locality. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24)
- Section 41, Transfer of Property Act, 1882The claimed bona fide-purchaser protection could not override lis pendens and the earlier claimant’s rights in the circumstances. (¶¶ 5, 15, 21, 22, 24)
Held
- Lis pendens protects pending litigation from unilateral dealings that defeat the rights ultimately adjudicated and avoids multiplicity. It begins when the plaint is presented, rather than only when an interim injunction is made. Its underlying equitable principle was applicable even on the assumption of nonapplication of the statutory provision as such. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- The injunction suit preceded both the release to the vendor’s son and that son’s subsequent sale. These dealings could not operate against the appellant’s interests. Uncertainty about which event occurred first on the injunction date did not defeat the doctrine, which already operated from the earlier suit filing. (¶¶ 19, 20, 24)
- The Court did not determine the advocate-witness privilege controversy or the later purchasers’ actual knowledge of the injunction. On the case’s facts, ignorance of the injunction did not defeat lis pendens or entitle subsequent purchasers to Section 41 protection. (¶¶ 21, 22)
- Money spent on alterations and a submersible pump did not create a claim to the property or compensation defeating the appellant’s entitlement. (¶ 23)
- The High Court’s judgment was set aside and the appellant’s decree upheld. The original vendor was directed to accept the Rs.5.5 lakh balance and perform the 10 November 2002 sale agreement in the appellant’s favour within three months. (¶¶ 24, 25)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and specific-performance decree restored. Vendor to accept Rs.5.5 lakh balance and perform the sale agreement within three months.