IMPORTANT POINT
The doctrine of lis pendens prevents subsequent purchasers from claiming rights over property already subject to a legal decree.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.

Challenge in this appeal suit is to the order, dated 09.11.2018 in E.A.No.1 of 2018 in E.P.9 of 2015 in O.S.No.326 of 2004, on the file of VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam (Additional District Judge” for short), whereunder the learned Additional District Judge dealing with a claim under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dismissed the said E.A.No.1 of 2018. Felt aggrieved of the order, the unsuccessful claimants in E.A.No.1 of 2018 as above, filed the present appeal suit.

2. The parties to this appeal suit will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Additional District Judge for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the claimants, in brief, before the learned Additional District Judge in E.A.No.1 of 2018 in E.P.No.9 of 2015 in O.S.No.326 of 2004, is that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the petition schedule property. They are in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of purchase, dated 10.07.2007 under a registered sale deed bearing document No.3427/2007 from Mylavarapu Satyavathi (third respondent in E.A.No.1 of 2018). Originally there was an old building. After purchase the petitioners obtained necessary approvals from Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation demolished the old building and constructed new building as per the approved plan. Petitioners are paying municipal tax and electricity consumption charges to the concerned. They came to know that the first respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit, O.S.No.326 of 2004 against the second respondent and third respondent and obtained a decree. They also came to know that the first respondent/plaintiff got attached the petition schedule property on 29.08.2016 which was made absolute. The second respondent and third respondent have no right after sale of the petition schedule property to the petitioners. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 might have colluded and obtained a decree. The vendor of the petitioners i.e., third respondent got the suit schedule property under a registered gift deed, dated 19.12.2002 executed by the second respondent in her favour. Petitioners obtained encumbrance certificate from the Sub-Registrar office, Visakhapatnam for 35 years prior to the purchase. They paid a sale consideration of Rs.15,39,000/- to their vendor. They availed loan from Shriram City Union Finance Limited by mortgaging the petition schedule property on 30.04.2012 under mortgage deed. Later the loan was taken over by Visakhapatnam Co-operative Bank under a document No.1680/2016, dated 09.03.2016, which was mentioned in encumbrance certificate.

4. The petitioners came to know that the first respondent/ plaintiff filed suit, O.S.No.326 of 2004 for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 04.11.1998 and it was decreed partly for return of the advance amount. As against the said decree, the first respondent preferred an appeal, A.S.No.826 of 2008 before the High Court and the High Court allowed the appeal partly by granting interest at 15% per annum. Later, the first respondent filed E.P.No.9 of 2015 against the second respondent and third respondent. Though the petition schedule property was purchased by the petitioners on 10.07.2007, the decree obtained by the first respondent on 10.09.2008 against second respondent and third respondent is subsequent to the purchase of the petition schedule property by the petitioners. So also, the attachment was made on 29.08.2016. On coming to know the facts, the petitioners filed a petition to raise the attachment. Hence, the petition.

5. The first respondent got filed a counter contending in substance that the allegations that first respondent colluded with second respondent and third respondent and obtained a decree is not correct. During the pendency of the suit filed by the first respondent against second respondent and third respondent, the second respondent alienated the property in favour of third respondent and the sai