Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act imputes knowledge of pending litigation to a purchaser the moment the plaint is presented, and the purchaser is bound by the orders passed against the vendor.

JUDGMENT :

P.G.M. Patil, J.

1. The pendente-lite purchaser of the suit property, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9.9.2004, passed in R.A.No.69/1998, by the District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Jamakhandi, reversing the judgment and decree dated 21.7.1998, passed in O.S.No.171/1996, by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Mudhol, has filed this regular second appeal.

2. Along with this appeal, the appellant has filed an application in I.A.No.3/2018 under section 151 of CPC seeking permission to prosecute the regular second appeal.

3. The appellant Annappa S/o. Adiveppa Handigund has sworn to an affidavit annexed to the application stating that the suit property was allotted to the share of father of the defendants in the partition in 1961 wherein various properties were divided between father of the plaintiff and father of the defendants. Thereafter in a subsequent partition, the suit property was allotted to the share of defendant No.3 and he had been in exclusive possession. However, respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.171/1996 against the defendants and the same was dismissed. R.A.No.69/1998 filed by the plaintiff came to be allowed decreeing the suit granting half share. In the meanwhile, the appellant herein had purchased the suit property for a valuable consideration being unaware of the litigation. RSA filed by the defendant came to be dismissed as withdrawn. SLP filed by the L.Rs., of the defendant was also dismissed. He purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 25.7.2003 from the original defendant No.3. He is a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration being unaware of the litigation. He is the ultimate sufferer of the preliminary decree passed in R.A.No.69/1998. Therefore if the permission to prosecute this appeal is not granted, he will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

4. The counsel for the respondent No.1 has filed common statement of objections on this application along with I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2018 stating that the appellant who is the purchaser pendentelite has filed the top noted appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 9.9.2004 passed by the lower appellate Court in R.A.No.69/1998, reversing the judgment and decree dated 21.7.1998, passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.171/1996. The appellant is a pendente-lite purchaser of the land in question. He purchased the said land during the pendency of R.A.No.69/1998 from one Hanumant S/o. Gopal Deshpande on 25.7.2003. Subsequent to the purchase, the appeal was allowed and suit filed by respondent No.1 was decreed granting him half share in the suit property. The brother of the plaintiff, vendor of the appellant Mahadev died on 21.3.2003, who had executed a power of attorney in favour of his brother Krishna S/o. Gopal Deshpande and the said Krishna without bringing it to the knowledge of this Court had filed RSA No.1188/2004 on 1.12.2004. Thereafter this Court was pleased to issue notice in the matter and subsequently respondent No.1 brought to the notice of the Court that the appeal is filed by a dead person and the counsel was asked to withdraw the appeal. The same was withdrawn on 23.6.2011 without seeking liberty to file fresh appeal. He has further stated that nearly after 2479 days, another appeal in RSA No.5802/2011 was filed before this Court challenging the same judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.69/1998 and the said appeal was dismissed by this Court on 9.7.2013. Thereafter the L.Rs of the deceased defendant preferred SLP No.33698/2013 before the Hon'ble Apex Court which condoned the delay and after hearing, dismissed the SLPs. The appellant herein without bringing all the above facts to the knowledge of this Court has filed the present appeal after delay of 4866 days i.e., nearly after 13 years as the FDP Court has ordered for possession warrant and the appeal is filed only to drag on the matter and to harass the responde