Third party rights created in violation of court orders are of no consequence and liable to be set aside. The principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of TPA, 1882 renders the transfer of property pendente lite subject to the outcome of the suit.

Vinog Goel, J.

The impugned order dated 30.01.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-04, South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi ('ADJ'), in Civil Suit No. 8018/2016 dismissing the application of the appellant/plaintiff No.1 and the Respondent No.4/Plaintiff No.2, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

2. As per the factual matrix, the appellant and respondent no.4 jointly purchased an area of approximately 340 square feet, i.e, front portion of the basement of property No. A-249, Defence Colony, New Delhi vide registered Sale Deed dated 28.01.2003 from the respondent no.1. They claimed that the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 in collusion and connivance obtained a judgment and decree dated 21.10.2011 directing the appellant and the respondent no. 4 to deliver the possession of the property to the respondent no.3. It is also pleaded that the respondent no.3 has filed an execution of judgment and decree dated 21.10.2011 in which warrants of possession in respect of the said property have been issued.

3. It has been pleaded by the respondent no.3 in its written statement that the suit of the appellant and the respondent no.4 is without any cause of action and not maintainable, as they have already availed of the remedies under the law and after hearing them, the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2011 came to be passed in its favour against the appellant and the respondent no.4. The respondent no.3 further pleaded that the second round of ligation is nothing but an abuse of the process of court and has been initiated by the appellant and the respondent no.4 in order to frustrate the judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent no.3.

4. He submits that the respondent no.3, being a tenant on the ground floor of the suit property No. A-249, Defence Colony, New Delhi, filed a Civil Suit No. 82/1997 on 04.03.1997 for permanent injunction against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and others. The parties had amicably settled their disputes in terms of the Deed of Compromise dated 27.03.1997 and filed a joint application dated 27.03.1997 under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC. He submits that on the same day, an Agreement to Sell was executed among the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, whereby it was agreed that by demolishing the existing structure a new residential building shall be constructed consisting of the basement, ground, first and second floors by the respondent No. 2; the basement, ground floor and terrace rights shall vest in respondent no.1/owner; the first floor and the second floor shall belong to the respondent no.2; and on construction, the respondent no.1 was to sell the basement floor to the respondent no.3.

5. He submits that subsequently on 23.07.1997, there was another agreement between the respondent nos. 1 and 2 by which the respondent no.1 has agreed that on construction of the basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor by the respondent no.2, the basement and ground floor shall vest in the respondent no.2, and the first floor, second floor and terrace rights shall vest in the respondent no.1 in contrast to the earlier agreement dated 27.03.1997 by which the basement, ground floor and the terrace were to vest with the respondent no.1 and the first floor and second floor with the respondent no.2.

6. He submits that the Respondent No.3 filed a Civil Suit being CS(OS) No. 1571/1998 against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in this court for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27.03.1997. While considering the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC of the respondent no.3, this court on 10.11.1998 had directed the parties to maintain the status quo in respect of the basement of the said property as referred to in agreement to sell dated 27.031997.

7. He submits that during the pendency of the said civil suit, the respondent no.1 executed a sale deed on 07.08.2000 in favour of