The doctrine of lis pendens states that pending litigation prevents property transfer affecting the rights of parties involved, ensuring that prior agreements prevail despite subsequent transactions.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

1. The Appellant is defendant No. 2 before the trial Court. The present appeal has been filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), for assailing the judgement and decree dated 28.07.2022 passed by District Judge, Kangra, in Civil Appeal No. 23-D/XIII/2021 whereby Appeal/Cross Objections filed by Respondent No.2 and the present Appellant, respectively against the Judgement and Decree dated 30.09.2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 33/14/2011 was dismissed.

2. The plaintiff had initially filed a civil suit in the trial court under Section 10 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963, seeking a decree for specific performance of a contract dated 03.08.2009 for the sale of land owned by defendant No.1. The suit pertained to Khata No. 224, Khatauni No. 457, Khasra No. 858, measuring 0-18-00 hectares (181/362 share, i.e., 0-09-00 hectares), and Khata No. 225, Khatauni No. 458, Khasra No. 857, measuring 0-59-51 hectares (181/724 share, i.e., 0-14-88 hectares), situated in Mohal Dhann, Mauza and Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra (Himachal Pradesh), as per the Jamabandi 2003-04. The total agreed consideration was Rs. 13,02,000/- (at Rs. 2,10,000/- per kanal), with the plaintiff having already paid Rs. 6,60,000/- (including an advance of Rs. 4,10,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- on 10.08.2009). The remaining amount (Rs. 6,42,000/-) was to be paid within one year (02.08.2010), later extended to 02.08.2012.

3. The plaintiff claimed that possession of the land was handed over to him at the time of the agreement (03.08.2009), and he was authorized to construct buildings on the land. His wife was already a co-sharer in the property. Despite repeated requests, defendant No.1 allegedly avoided executing the sale deed. The plaintiff sent a telegraphic notice (01.08.2011) and a registered notice (01.08.2011), asking defendant No.1 to appear at the Tehsil Office, Jawali, on 02.08.2011 for the execution of the sale deed. However, defendant No.1 failed to appear, prompting the plaintiff to execute an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, Jawali.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the trial court ordered a status quo on 05.09.2011, but defendant No.1 allegedly violated this order by executing a sale deed on 05.03.2012 in favor of defendant No.2 for a portion of the suit land (Khasra No. 857, 181/724 share, 0-14-88 hectares) for a fictitious consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The plaintiff claimed that he had already informed the Sub-Registrar about the pending suit and status quo order, but the sale deed was still registered. Consequently, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC against defendant No.1 and the Sub-Registrar. The plaintiff argued that the sale deed was a sham transaction and did not affect his rights.

5. Defendant No.1 contested the suit, denying the execution of any agreement to sell the land at Rs. 2,10,000/- per kanal. He claimed that the actual agreed rate was Rs. 6,50,000/- per kanal and that the plaintiff had fraudulently prepared undervalued agreements to evade taxes. Defendant No.1, being illiterate and poor, alleged that he was misled. He denied receiving any payment or handing over possession, asserting that he remained the owner in possession, cultivating the land seasonally. He also denied receiving any telegraphic or registered notice and claimed that the plaintiff never requested the execution of the sale deed.

6. Defendant No.2, the subsequent purchaser, claimed to be a bona fide purchaser who had no knowledge of the prior agreement. He asserted that he had verified the