Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vijaya Kumari Natarajan for S. Natarajan
For the Respondent: C. Mani Shankar, Senior Counsel for Y. Kavitha and R. Syed Mustafa

The legal document discusses a complex case involving a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, along with issues related to transfers during the pendency of the suit, and the rights of subsequent purchasers or transferees.

Key points include:

1. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance based on a sale agreement with the first defendant, who had initially agreed to sell a specified portion of the property for a certain consideration and had paid an advance (!) (!) .

2. The first defendant later entered into a second sale agreement, treating the previous advance as part of the new consideration, and agreed to sell the entire property for a higher amount (!) .

3. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant executed a sale deed in favor of a third party, the subsequent purchaser, despite an existing injunction order restraining such alienation (!) (!) .

4. The first defendant also redeemed mortgages and transferred the property to the third party without informing the plaintiff, which was done during the pendency of the suit and in violation of court orders (!) (!) .

5. The court examined the conduct of the first defendant, noting contradictions in his affidavits regarding knowledge of the suit and the sale agreement, which indicated mala fide intent and lack of bona fides (!) (!) .

6. The applications to condone delay in setting aside the ex-parte decree and to implead the subsequent purchaser were considered, with the court finding that the reasons provided were inadequate and lacked credibility, leading to the rejection of those applications (!) (!) .

7. It was emphasized that transfers during the pendency of a suit are generally subject to the rights of the parties and the decree, and such transfers are not automatically void but are subordinate to the court’s decision (!) (!) .

8. The court reaffirmed that a plaintiff’s right to enforce a specific performance contract is exclusive, and the court cannot compel the plaintiff to add third parties as parties unless legally required (!) (!) .

9. The doctrine of Lis-Pendens is recognized as a principle that prevents parties from dealing with the property in a manner that affects the rights of the litigants, and transfers in violation of court orders or during the pendency of a suit can be challenged (!) (!) .

10. The court also noted that a subsequent transferee who is aware of the ongoing litigation and the plaintiff’s possession cannot claim to be a bona fide purchaser without notice, especially if the transfer was made in violation of court orders (!) (!) .

11. Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned orders allowing the applications to set aside the ex-parte decree and to implead the subsequent purchaser, affirming the rights of the plaintiff and the importance of respecting court orders and the principles governing transfers during ongoing litigation (!) .

These points collectively underscore the importance of good faith, adherence to court orders, and the legal principles governing transfers and suits for specific performance.