The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the rights of bona fide purchasers for value without notice of any legal proceeding.

1. The second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2004 in A.S.No.78 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No. III), Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1998 in O.S.No.146 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate's Court, Paramathi.

2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:-

(i) Originally, the suit property belonged to one Duraisamy Gounder, S/o.Rasappa Gounder. The said Duraisamy Gounder agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff, for which, he entered into a sale agreement dated 20.06.1987 for consideration of Rs.50,000/- and the plaintiff has paid Rs.20,000/- as an advance and agreed to complete the sale on or before 20.01.1988. Even though the plaintiff is ready to pay the balance sum, the said Duraisamy is not ready and willing to perform the part of contract. Therefore, the plaintiff has sent a legal notice to the said Duraisamy Gounder on 18.12.1987. The said Duraisamy gounder sent a reply stating that he executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife Lakshmiammal. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.33 of 1988 against the said Duraisamy Gounder and his wife Lakshmiammal and that suit was decreed in favour of him. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed execution petition and got the sale deed.

(ii) During pendency of O.S.No.33 of 1988, the said Lakshmi Ammal has executed sale deeds dated 24.04.1989 and 06.08.1990 in favour of the defendants. Since the sale deeds have been executed in favour of the defendants during lis pendens, the sale deeds are barred by law. As the defendants got sale deeds, the plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.59 of 1992 to implead the defendants 1 and 2 as parties in O.S.No.33 of 1988, but that application was dismissed stating that the plaintiff has to file a separate suit against the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff is entitled to the suit property on the basis of the sale agreement dated 20.06.1987 as well as the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants 1 and 2 for declaration of title and recovery of possession with mesne profits.

3. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the defendants are as follows:

(i) Originally, the suit property belonged to Duraisamy Gounder. The defendants were aware about the alleged notice issued by the plaintiff to Duraisamy Gounder only after verifying Court records. It is true, the said Duraisamy Gounder in his reply notice denied the execution of sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit against Duraisamy Gounder only and Lakshmi ammal was not a defendant in the said suit.

(ii) Even though the plaintiff had knowledge that on the date of reply notice dated 22.12.1987 itself, the suit properties were settled by Duraisamy gounder as early as 05.08.1987 in favour of his wife Lakshmi Ammal, he had not chosen to file the said suit against Lakshmi Ammal, the real owner of the said properties for the relief of specific performance.

(iii) On the date of suit (i.e.) on 20.01.1988, Duraiswamy gounder had no manner of right, title or interest in the suit properties. The decree in O.S.No.33 of 1988 does not bind upon the defendants, since the defendants were not parties to that suit. The plaintiff has no title to the suit properties by virtue of the decree in O.S.No.33 of 1988, which is null and void.

(iv) These defendants are bona fide purchasers for value without notice of any claim of plaintiff over the suit properties. On the date of sale of the suit properties, the vendor of these defendants viz., Lakshmi Ammal was not a defendant in O.S.No.33 of 1988 and hence, the question of list pendens does not arise. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of possession or mesne profits. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The Learned Trial Judge after considering the averments both in the plaint and written statement and ar