The main legal point established is that the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to pending litigation and property transfers during the continuity of proceedings, with emphasis on the impact of limitation periods and the necessity of making transferees parties to further proceedings for binding effect.

JUDGMENT :

The main issue involved in the case is pertaining to the application of doctrine of “lis pendens” engrafted under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and whether it will have any application to a transfer of interest effected during the period of discontinuance of litigation and what would be the legal position when the delay occasioned in that behalf was subsequently condoned.

2. Ext.P2 common order in I.A.No.3170/2009 and 3744/2008 is under challenge by petitioner. He purchased an extent of 1 acre 3 cents of property from one Acharu on 10/04/1980. She is the daughter of one Kuriappan, who claims to be the legal heir of one Rappai. He obtained the property as per document No.371/1957. The actual extent comes to 8 Acres 47 cents. As per the plaint schedule description, it is only a registered holding of 5 Acres 55 cents. A preliminary decree was passed pertaining to the said property. It was challenged before the first appellate court as well as this Court by way of a second appeal, in which a decision was rendered on 31/08/1978, by which the suit was dismissed finding that the property is not available for partition. It is after the disposal of the second appeal - S.A.No.278/1974, the property was purchased by the petitioner on 10/04/1980 and it was mutated in his name and improved the property by cultivation and also by constructing a building therein. He had initiated a civil suit - O.S.No.228/2002 for injunction against the alleged attempt of trespass. It is at that time, he came to know about the judgment rendered by the Apex Court, by which the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the second appeal was set aside. It is submitted that within the time of limitation, nobody has approached the Apex Court challenging the verdict given by the second appellate court. The transfer of title and interest over an extent of 1 acre 3 cents after the disposal of the second appeal according to the petitioner is valid and will not stand vitiated by the application of doctrine of lis pendens as incorporated under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is inter alia contended that the sale deed executed after the disposal of the second appeal would stand valid and will not stand hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. Hence, the decree passed by the Apex Court reversing the decision of the second appellate court would not bind on the purchaser, who obtained the property during the interregnum after the expiry of the period of limitation. It is submitted that it is after the disposal of second appeal and also after the expiry of the period of limitation available for challenging the same before the Apex Court, the property was purchased by the present petitioner. If it is so, the transfer of right effected over the property during the interregnum after the expiry of the period of limitation would not come under the purview of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is submitted that the plaintiff had approached the Apex Court with a special leave application along with an application for condonation of long delay. Hence, the decision rendered in the SLP reversing the finding of second appellate court and the decree granted thereof though would stand merged in the judgment of the Apex Court, it will not have any binding force to a person, who is a subsequent purchaser of the property after the expiry of period of limitation and before the initiation of proceedings for the SLP. The fact that the SLP was allowed by setting aside the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court (second appellate court) hence may not have any binding force to the petitioner herein, if the property was purchased during the interregnum after the expiry of the period of limitation and before the initiation of SLP proceedings before the Apex Court.

3. The sum and substance of doctrine of lis pendens is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to give finality and effectiveness to the decision render