The main legal point established in the judgment is that any sale or transfer of property during the pendency of a suit is void and cannot affect the rights of any party to the suit. The court also clarified the limitations on invoking Order 21 Rule 97 in such circumstances.

1. Heard both sides.

2. One Perumal, the husband of Rajamani Ammal purchased the suit property under registered sale deed dated 11.08.1969. The said Rajamani Ammal entered into an agreement of sale with one Avudaiappan to sell the property for a sum for Rs.65,000/- on 06.06.1994.

3. Since Rajamani Ammal did not fulfil her commitments, Avudaiappan filed O.S.No.232 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirunelveli against Rajamani Ammal for specific performance on 04.08.1994.

4. After the institution of the suit, the defendant, Rajamani Ammal sold the property to one Thomas during the pendency of the suit. Hence, the said Thomas was impleaded as the second defendant in O.S.No.232 of 1994. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the first respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, has submitted that there is an embargo placed by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act to effect sale of the property involved in the suit. The learned counsel has taken me through Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the same is extracted hereunder:

"52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.- During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force."

Thereafter, after contest, the suit was decreed on 25.03.1998 on merits. The decree attained finality.

5. When the suit was pending, further sale was executed by the defendants in the suit viz., O.S.No.232 of 1994 to the first appellant herein on 27.08.1997. Since the suit was decreed, as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the sale effected by the first respondent to the second defendant on 14.08.1997, itself is void. Therefore, the further sale by the first and second defendants to the first appellant herein on 27.08.1998 is also invalid, since the suit is decreed in O.S.No.232 of 1994 as prayed for.

6. While so, the first appellant herein made a further sale of the property to the second appellant on 19.11.2008. When the first respondent herein viz., the plaintiff in the suit filed execution petition in E.P.No.47 of 2009, the same was allowed and sale was was executed by the learned Subordinate Judge in favour of the plaintiff by way of a registered document in No.1085 of 2010 on 29.04.2010.

7. While so, the first respondent herein/plaintiff filed appropriate application for delivery of property in E.A.No.914 of 2010 on 01.11.2010. While so, the appellants herein filed obstruction application in E.A.No.505 of 2011 under Order 21 Rule 97 on 18.11.2011. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court rejected the obstruction application in E.A.No.505 of 2011 on 24.09.2012. The Trial Court found that the appellants, who filed E.A.No.505 of 2011 as obstructors committed collusion by effecting the sale in the aforesaid circumstances. Thereafter, the appellants herein filed C.M.A.No.34 of 2012 against the order dated 24.09.2012 in E.A.No.505 of 2011. The appeal in C.M.A.