The decree in a previous suit remains binding and under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the transfer of property during pending litigation does not affect rights to the property after the final decree.

JUDGMENT :

B V L N Chakravarthi, J.

This Second Appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendants No.1, 2 and 4 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 , assailing the decree and judgment, dated 28.09.1999, passed in A.S.No.10 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, at Anakapalle.

2. Heard Smt.T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the Appellants No.1 and 2. The appellant No.3 died pending appeal. No legal representatives came on record. Heard Sri Y.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the 1^st Respondent. None appeared for the respondent No.2/defendant No.5, who remained exparte before the trial Court, as well 1^st Appellate Court. Perused the material on record.

PLEADINGS:

3. The appellants No.1 and 2 are the defendants No.1 and 2 in the suit. The 1^st respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The parties in the Second Appeal shall hereinafter be referred to as arraigned in the Original Suit, for convenience and clarity.

4. The suit in O.S.224/1984 on the file of Prl.District Munsif, Anakapalle, was instituted seeking the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, over the plaint schedule property.

5. The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 05.11.1991. The defendants preferred appeal in A.S.10/1992 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Anakapalle, challenging the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. The Senior Civil Judge at Anakapalle dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 28.09.1999 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

6. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property belongs to Smt.Padathala Appala Narasama; she executed a sale agreement on 08.07.1981 in favour of the plaintiff; later delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff in the evening on the same day; therefore, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property; the vendor did not execute sale deed; the plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.594/1981 for specific performance of sale agreement; the vendor did not contest the suit; the suit was decreed on 19.01.1982; the plaintiff filed E.P.38/1983 as the vendor failed to execute the sale deed in terms of the decree; the Court executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff; later, the plaintiff came to know that Smt.P. Appala Narasamma executed a sale deed in favour of the 1^st defendant in March, 1982 pending O.S.594/1981. The plaintiff raised a thatched shed in the plaint schedule property and living there; The plaintiff has been constructing a compound wall on 14.05.1984; the defendants obstructed the plaintiff; hence, the suit for permanent injunction.

7. The case of the defendants is that Smt.P.Appala Narasamma is the owner of the plaint schedule property; she executed a sale agreement in favour of the 1^st defendant on 20.08.1980; later, on 15.02.1982, she executed a sale deed in favour of the 1^st defendant and delivered possession; Later, the 1^st defendant disposed of the property in favour of Smt.Sk.Razia, W/o.Abdul Gafoor, Smt.Sk.Yasin, W/o.Sk.Subhan and Smt.Firani, W/o.Sk.Abdulla, under two separate registered sale deeds dated 02.05.1984 for Ac.0-06 cents each; Pattedar passbook was also issued to the 1^st defendant for Ac.0-12 cents; the 1^st defendant was in possession of the property till she executed of the above sale deeds; After execution of the sale deeds, purchasers are in possession of the said property; The plaintiff was never in possession of the said property; the sale agreement in favou