2008 (5) TMI 719 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the effect of lis pendens on subsequent sale of property, and the requirement of the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

Applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act:
The trial court did not consider Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, but the learned Single Judge found that the subsequent purchase made by the appellant was bona fide and without notice of the original contract. The question was whether the principle of lis pendens would affect the subsequent sale of the property. The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court discussed the scope of Section 52 and emphasized the necessity for final adjudication to prevent endless litigation. The principle of lis pendens aims to ensure that the rights of parties in litigation are protected and that subsequent sales do not prejudice ongoing legal proceedings.

Effect of Lis Pendens on Subsequent Sale:
In this case, the suit for specific performance was filed before the second sale of the property, making the principle of lis pendens applicable. The subsequent purchaser, although acting in good faith, was subject to the ongoing litigation and could not override the rights established by the initial agreement. The principle of lis pendens serves the public policy of bringing certainty to legal disputes and preventing endless litigation.

Requirement of Plaintiff to Prove Readiness and Willingness:
The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. The appellant argued that the plaintiff did not prove this requirement, but the learned Single Judge found that the plaintiff had indeed shown readiness and willingness to fulfill the contract. The appellant's plea regarding this issue was considered and dismissed, as the plaintiff had met the necessary requirements. The Division Bench upheld the decision, emphasizing the applicability of lis pendens in this case.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Division Bench. The principle of lis pendens was deemed applicable, and the subsequent purchaser could not override the rights established by the initial agreement. The plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract were found to be adequately demonstrated, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.