IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Limited rights of Transferee Pendent Lite cannot be stretched to obstruct and resist full claim of decree holders to execute decree in their favour.
(2) Doctrine of Merger – Merger of decree takes place irrespective of fact as to whether Appellate Court affirms, modifies or reverses decree passed by trial court.

JUDGMENT :

(Prasanna B. Varale, J.)

1. The present appeal arises from the judgement and order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P. No. 4385 of 2014 wherein the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant herein.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2.1 One Chenmougam Aroumugam, father of respondent Nos. 1 to 8, had purchased ½ share of ‘A’ Schedule property under a sale deed dated 31.01.1959. Subsequently, on 15.12.1959 Tiranti Tam, mother of respondent Nos. 1 to 8 purchased another ½ share of ‘A’ property and on the same day, the father donated his half share of ‘A’ Scheduled property to his wife. Hence, the mother became the absolute owner of ‘A’ Schedule property bearing Door No. 10, Mariamman Kovil Street Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Pondicherry.

2.2 On 11.02.1976, the mother expired leaving behind respondent Nos. 1 to 8 as her legal heirs. Thereafter, on 19.12.1977, father of respondent Nos. 1 to 8 purchased ‘B’ Schedule property bearing Door No. 49, Chetty Street, Pondicherry, under a sale deed dated 12.12.1977. He bequeathed this ‘B’ schedule property by way of a Will (Exhibit A7) dated 12.06.1978 in favour of respondent No. 9 allegedly after developing intimacy with her.

2.3 Subsequently, respondent No.2 filed OS No. 262 of 1980 against his father before Principal District Munsif Court at Pondicherry for permanent injunction restraining the father from alienating the suit properties therein.

2.4 On 22.06.1981, the father executed a sale agreement (Exhibit B1) with regard to ‘B’ schedule property in favour of the appellant for a sale consideration of Rs. 60,000 and an amount of Rs.10,000 was paid as an advance on the same day itself and Rs.30,000 was paid later on. The balance amount of Rs.20,000 was left unpaid and the appellant was put in possession of the ‘B’ schedule property.

2.5 The Principal District Munsif Court at Pondicherry decreed the suit filed by respondent No. 2(O.S. No. 262 of 1980) on 30.09.1981 with a direction to the father of respondents Nos.1 to 8 that he shall not alienate Item 2 of the suit properties to the extent of 7/8th share. As regards Item 1 of the suit property, the Trial Court held that no injunction is necessary as the property cannot be alienated without the consent of the co-sharers.

2.6 On 19.11.1981, the father of respondent Nos. 1 to 8 executed another Will (Exhibit A8) in favour of respondent No. 9 in respect of ‘A’ schedule property.

2.7 On 16.11.1982, during the pendency of appeal in AS No.46 of 1982 filed by the father, against the judgment & decree in OS No.262 of 1980, the father of respondent Nos. 1 to 8 died. Subsequently, respondent Nos. 1 to 8 filed OS No. 4 of 1983 in the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge at Pondicherry, against respondent No. 9 and the appellant to declare that (Exhibit A7) Will dated 12.06.1978 and (Exhibit A8) Will dated 19.11.1981 both executed by their father in favour of respondent No. 9 are void and unenforceable and that respondent Nos. 1 to 8 are the rightful owners of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and to direct the appellant herein to pay rent for ‘B’ schedule property.

2.8 On 01.08.1986, Principal Subordinate Judge at Puducherry in OS No. 4 of 1983 passed judgment and decree declaring Exhibit A7 Will as void and not binding on respondent Nos. 1 to 8 and exhibit A8 Will was declared void and unenforceable to the extent of 7/8th share. It was observed that respondent Nos. 1 to 8 are the rightful owners of 7/8th share of ‘A’ schedule property and absolute owners of ‘B’ schedule property. Further, respondent Nos. 1 to 8 were held jointly and severally liable to refund the advance money of Rs. 40,000 to the appellant within a period of three months and they were held entitled to recover possession of ‘B’ schedule property within one month after such payment to the appellant.

2.9 Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment of the Trial Court, both the parties filed their respective ap