Back
2010 (7) Supreme 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Har Narain (Dead) by LRs. — Appellant
versus
Mam Chand (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.995-996 of 2003
Decided on : 8-10-2010
AIR 1961 SC 1747; AIR 1969 SC 244; AIR 1972 SC 2162; AIR 1995 SC 73; AIR 2006 SCC 2199 – Relied upon
(b) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 19(b) r/w section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Where the sale deed is registered after filing of suit, such purchaser cannot derive any benefit from Section 19(b) of the Act 1963 read with Section 52 of the Act, 1882 – Such subsequent sale is subject to the doctrine of lis pendens – Second sale can not have the overriding effect on the first sale. (Para 12)
(2008) 5 SCC 796 – Relied upon
(c) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 3, Explanation – Notice – Any person acquiring any immovable property or any share or interest in any such property shall be deemed to have notice of title, if any, of any person who is for the time being in actual possession thereof. (Para 15)
AIR 2001 SC 1658 – Relied upon
(d) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 19(b) – It can not be held that the subsequent purchasers were bona fide purchasers in good faith for value without notice of the original contract – They were required to make inquiry as to the nature of the possession or title or further interest, if any, of the other party over the suit property at the time when they entered into sale transaction – They were already being aware that the other party was in possession of the suit property as the tenant, notwithstanding – Thus, what is material is the inquiry at the time when subsequent sale transaction was entered into. (Para 14)
AIR 2001 SC 1658 – Relied upon
(e) Maxim – Pendente lite, nihil innovetur – Provides that as to the rights of the parties to the litigation, “the conveyance is treated as if it never had any existence and it does not vary them.” (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
1. Defendant/respondent No.1-Mam Chand the owner of land had mortgaged the entire land in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, namely, Har Narain for Rs.7,000/-.
2. The appellant was also put in possession of the said land. The respondent No.1 entered into an Agreement for Sale of 8 kanals of the said property with the appellant for Rs.7500/- and he received Rs.200/- as earnest money in cash while a sum of Rs.7000/- to be adjusted as mortgage amount. However, the said respondent No.1 executed the sale deed on 2.8.1971 in favour of respondent nos.2 to 6.
3. The appellant filed Suit for specific performance against the respondent no.1 for executing the sale deed of the land in question on 10.8.1971 and the trial Court restrained him from alienating the suit property by any means. However, the sale deed having been executed in favour of the said respondents was registered on 3.9.1971 the suit was contested by the respondents on various grounds.
4. The trial Court dismissed the suit on various grounds.
5. The appellant filed First Appeal which was dismissed.
6. The appellant further approached the High Court in Second Appeal which was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Doctrine of lis pendens would apply in the present case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Sale of immovable property is not considered complete until the registration of the sale deed is finalized. The registration date determines the effective date of the transfer of title (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Even if a sale deed is executed prior to the filing of a suit, its registration after the suit's initiation relates back to the date of execution, but the sale is only effective once registered. The doctrine of lis pendens applies to pending suits and prevents subsequent sales from affecting the rights of the parties involved in the litigation (!) (!) (!) (!) .
A sale deed of immovable property exceeding a certain value requires registration to be legally effective. The registration relates back to the date of execution but does not make the sale complete until the registration is done (!) (!) .
The rights of subsequent purchasers who buy in good faith without notice of prior agreements or interests are protected under specific statutory provisions, provided they are unaware of any conflicting interests and have made no inquiry to discover them. If they are aware of possession or other interests, their status as bona fide purchasers is questionable (!) (!) .
Knowledge of actual possession by a prior party, especially when such possession is in the nature of a mortgagee or tenant, can constitute notice to subsequent purchasers, thereby affecting their rights and protections under law (!) (!) .
The doctrine of lis pendens applies when a sale deed is executed during the pendency of a suit, and the sale cannot be deemed complete before registration. Therefore, subsequent purchasers who buy after the suit is filed but before registration are bound by the pending litigation (!) (!) .
The effect of registration relates back to the date of execution, but the sale's completion depends on registration. The fiction created by registration laws does not override the requirement that registration must be completed for the sale to be legally effective (!) (!) .
In cases where there is a prior agreement or interest, subsequent purchasers who have notice of such interests cannot claim protection as bona fide purchasers without notice. Their rights are subject to the ongoing litigation and prior interests (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the rights of parties during litigation are protected by the principle that "pendente lite, nihil innovetur," meaning no new rights or interests can be validly created during the pendency of a suit that would affect the existing rights (!) .
The court allows the appeal, sets aside the judgments of lower courts, and directs the respondents to execute the sale deed in favor of the appellant within a specified period, including provisions for repayment of consideration with interest and the right of redemption, ensuring justice is served (!) .
Please let me know if you need any further clarification or assistance.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. —
1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgments and orders dated 9.10.2001 and 9.9.2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No.1545 of 1979 dismissing the Regular Second Appeal, as well as the Review Application, filed by the appellant concurring with the judgments and orders of the trial Court as well as of the First Appellate Court on all issues raised in the case.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that the defendant/respondent No.1-Mam Chand (since deceased through LRs.) (hereinafter called the ‘respondent’) was the owner of land admeasuring 22 kanals situate within the Revenue estate of Village Asraka Majra, District Riwari, Haryana. The said respondent had mortgaged the entire land in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, namely, Har Narain (since deceased and now represented through his LRs.) for Rs.7,000/-. The appellant was also put in possession of the said land. The respondent No.1entered into an Agreement for Sale of 8 kanals of the said property with the appellant for Rs.7500/- and he received Rs.200/- as earnest money in cash while a sum of Rs.7000/- to be adjusted as mortgage amount. However, the said respondent No.1 executed the sale deed on 2.8.1971 in favour of respondent nos.2 to 6.
3. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed Suit No.172 of 1971, for specific performance against the respondent no.1 for executing the sale deed of the land in question on 10.8.1971 and the trial Court restrained him from alienating the suit property by any means. Respondent no.1 moved an application dated 16.8.1971 for vacating/modifying the interim order dated 10.8.1971 wherein he disclosed that the entire land in dispute had already been alienated in favour of respondent nos.2 to 6. However, the sale deed executed in favour of the said respondents was registered on 3.9.1971. The suit was contested by the respondents on various grounds, however, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 4.9.1973 on various grounds, inter alia, that sale deed deemed to have come into force on 2.8.1971, as the registration thereof dated 3.9.1971 would relate back to the date of execution which had been prior to institution of the suit and thus, the doctrine of lis pendens would not apply. The said respondents 2 to 6 were bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice. Therefore, the sale deed in their favour was to be protected.
4. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed First Appeal No.508 of 1973, however, the same was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.3.1979. The appellant further approached the High Court by filing the Regular Second Appeal No.1545 of 1979 which was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 9.10.2001. However, as none had appeared on behalf of the appellant on the said date before the High Court, the appellant filed the application to recall the said judgment and order dated 9.10.2001 under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called ‘CPC’). The said application was allowed vide order dated 9.9.2002 and the matter was heard afresh on merit on the same day. The Court agreed with the proposition laid down by the courts below that principles of lis pendens would not apply in the facts and circumstances of this case as the sale deed has been executed before the filing of the suit though, the same was got registered subsequent to the institution of the suit. Hence, these appeals.
5. Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the courts below reached the conclusion that doctrine of lis pendens was not applicable in the facts of the case merely on the ground that the sale deed has been executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of respondent nos.2 to 6 prior to institution of the suit and the registration of the sale deed would r
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
