9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stration of the sale deed on or before 30.11.1992. 3. According to the plaintiff, he remained present in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 30.11.1992 with the balance sale consideration and all the expenses for stamp papers but defendant no. 1 did not turn up to perform his part of the agreement. The plaintiff marked his presence by submitting an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate. The suit was preferred within 23 days as stipulated in the agreement. Defendant no. 1 initially denied the execution of the agreement to sell, much less, receipt of the earnest money with further averment that the subject land was a Joint Hindu Family property. During the pendency of the suit, the present appellant/defendant no. 2/Shingrara Singh was impleaded on 25.01.1993 on the basis that defendant no. 1/ Janraj Singh 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 for a sum of Rs. 6,45,937.50. It is to be noted that the Trial Court passed an order of status quo on 24.12.1992 qua alienation with regard to the share of defendant no. 1. 4. Defendant No. 2/appellant filed his separate written statement stati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment in this appeal, opined that the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2/appellant is hit by doctrine of lis pendens and that defendant no. 2/appellant is not a bona fide purchaser. The High Court noted that the suit was filed on 24.12.1992 and the next date before the Trial Court was fixed on 12.01.1993. However, the sale deed was executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 on 08.01.1993. Both defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 being the residents of same village, it is unbelievable that he was not having the knowledge of the agreement, for, the sale deed in favour of defendant no. 2 was for a lesser amount than the subject agreement. The agreement was for a sale consideration of Rs. 7,94,000/- whereas the sale deed was for Rs. 6,45,937.50. It is also held that mere relationship between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 would not be a ground to deny the discretionary relief and moreover, when both the courts below have found that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 8. Mr. Hrin P. Raval, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the High Court ought not to have disturbed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and all the issues have also been answered in favour of the respondent but there is a finding in the judgment which goes against the respondent. 11. In the type of case (i) it was necessary for the respondent to file an appeal or take crossobjection against that part of the decree which is against him if he seeks to get rid of the same though that part of the decree which is in his favour he is entitled to support without taking any cross-objection. The law remains so post9 amendment too. In the type of cases (ii) and (iii) pre-amendment CPC did not entitle nor permit the respondent to take any crossobjection as he was not the person aggrieved by the decree. Under the amended CPC, read in the light of the explanation, though it is still not necessary for the respondent to take any crossobjection laying challenge to any finding adverse to him as the decree is entirely in his favour and he may support the decree without cross-objection; the amendment made in the text of sub-rule (1), read with the explanation newly inserted, gives him a right to take crossobjection to a finding recorded against him either while answering an issue or while dealing with an issue. The advantage of pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is treated as constructive notice to a purchaser that he is bound by a decree to be entered in the pending suit. Rule 102, therefore, clarifies that there should not be resistance or obstruction by a transferee pendente lite. It declares that if the resistance is caused or obstruction is offered by a transferee pendente lite of the judgmentdebtor, he cannot seek benefit of Rules 98 or 100 of Order 21." 12. This Court in Sanjay Verma vs. Manik Roy (2006) 13 SCC 608 was dealing with a suit for specific performance. During pendency of the suit, a temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff and different portions of the suit land were sold whereafter the purchasers applied for impleadment, which was rejected by the Trial Court but allowed by the High Court against which special leave to appeal was filed. In the above background, this Court observed the following in para 12: "12. The principles specified in Section 52 of the TP Act are in accordance with equity, good conscience or justice because they rest upon an equitable and just foundation that it will be impossible to bring an action or suit to a successful termination if alienations are permitted to prevail. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "once it has been held that the transactions executed by the respondents are illegal due to the doctrine of lis pendens the defence of the respondents 1 - 2 that they are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and thus, entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is liable to be rejected." 15. In the case in hand also, 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/appellant with further finding on issue no. 5 that the agreement was not a result of fraud and collusion. The defendant did not prefer any cross-appeal or crossobjections 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 agreemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
