A transfer or dealing during the pendency of a suit is not void ipso facto under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It only cannot affect the rights of any other party to the suit under any decree or order that may be made in the suit or proceedings.

JUDGMENT :- This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 22nd September 1970 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Panaji, in special civil suit No. 174/68 on his file. The appellants were defendants 1 to 5 in the suit. The second respondent herein was the 6th defendant and she is the sister of the first respondent herein who was the plaintiff. The suit was for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit property and is entitled to have it in his possession exclusively and that the lease contract and the simple mortgage deed mentioned in the plaint were void and not binding on him (plaintiff), for recovery of Rs. 7,250/-damages from the appellants and for the issue of perpetual injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with his possession over the suit property.

The plaint allegations were that the parents of the plaintiff were the owners and possessors of the property called "Azmoticho Xendo" situated at Navetim (suit property), that they died about 35 years ago and since then he is its owner and possessor, that there are about 170 coconut trees, 3 mango trees and one jack-fruit tree in that property, that the second respondent herein (6th defendant) without any right was interfering in his rights over the suit property, so he filed suit No. 39/66 against her in the Civil Judge's Court at Panaji for declaration that he was the owner and possessor of the suit property, that that suit ended in a compromise and a consent decree was passed on 4-7-1968, that that decree was registered under No. 527 in the Sub-Registrar's Office at Panaji, that the appellants are members of a joint family and are residing in a house situated in the suit property as "mundkars", that they have no right to enjoy the suit property, that on 23-6-1966, the first appellant plucked coconuts from the trees standing in the suit property so he (plaintiff) filed complaint No. 1361/68 in Panaji Magistrate's Court, that even after his (plaintiff's) filing the complaint the first appellant with the assistance of the appellants 2 to 5 was plucking coconuts and misappropriating them, that due to it he incurred a loss of Rs. 7,250/- that during the trial of the complaint No. 1361/68 filed by him it was represented on behalf of the first appellant on 26-10-1968 that the suit property was given on lease by the second respondent to the first appellant, that he (plaintiff) does not know whether in fact the suit property was given on lease to the first appellant, that if there was a lease contract it is sham, void and without consideration, that during the pendency of the civil suit No. 39/66 filed by him the first appellant using undue influence got mortgaged in his favour the suit property by the second respondent herein and got executed by her the simple mortgage deed dated 30-3-1968, that the said mortgage deed is without consideration and illegal as per Section 52 of the Indian Transfer of Property Act and that he was entitled to have the reliefs prayed for by him.

2. The appellants i.e. the defendants 1 to 5 filed written statement opposing the suit. Their pleas were that the plaintiff was not the owner and possessor of the suit property, that the 6th defendant i.e. the second respondent herein, was its owner and possessor as it was allotted to her in 1943 in the "inventario" proceedings instituted after the death of her father, that after the death of her husband when "inventario" proceedings were instituted it was allotted to her in 1946, that the decree in suit No. 39/66 is a collusive one, that since January 1966 they (appellants) were plucking the coconuts as they had taken the suit property on lease from the second respondent herein agreeing to pay her rent at Rs. 200/- per year, that the yield from the coconut trees is not more than 1,000 coconuts per year, that the mortgage deed is valid and with consideration, that on 18th May 1968, the second respondent herein obtaining Rs. 1,000/- from the first appel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document