The doctrine of lis pendens, as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not apply to a sale in favor of a party during the pendency of a suit, if the party steps into the shoes of the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT :

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.

Prayer: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 98 of 1998 dated 30.06.2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 589 of 1992 dated 24.09.1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal.

1. The defendant in O.S. No. 589 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Namakkal, is the appellant herein. The said suit was originally filed by seven plaintiffs and later the 8th plaintiff had been impleaded on application filed and being allowed. The suit had been filed seeking a declaration that the 1st to 7th plaintiffs are entitled for a declaration with respect to A schedule property and that the 8th plaintiff is entitled for a declaration with respect to B schedule property and for recovery of possession with respect to item Nos.1 and 2 of B schedule property and to handover such possession to the 8th plaintiff and also for costs of the suit. The suit was decreed by judgment dated 24.09.1998. The defendant then filed A.S. No. 98 of 1998 before the Sub Court, Namakkal. The appeal suit was also dismissed by judgment dated 30.06.2000. The defendant then filed the present Second Appeal.

2. The Second Appeal had been admitted on the following three substantial questions of law:

“1. Have not the courts below committed error in law in decreeing the suit especially in respect of item Nos. 1 and 2 of ‘b’ schedule in favour of the 8th plaintiff when the sale effected in his favour is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens?

2. Are the Courts below justified in law in holding that the defendant has trespassed and encroached upon the suit property only on 14.11.1992 when the commissioner's report filed as early as 24.02.1987 supports the case of the defendant that he is in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid items long prior to the institution of the suit and not on 14.11.1992 as alleged by the plaintiffs?

3. Have not the courts below misdirected itself by not framing the issue regarding adverse possession and not adverting to and deciding the same in a manner known to law?”

3. The appellant also filed C.M.P. No. 27424 of 2019 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, to receive additional documents, namely, copy of assignment issued by the Tashildar and other revenue documents.

4. Pending the appeal the 1st to 3rd respondent died, but they had been set ex-parte even during the first appeal hearing. This Second Appeal was contested by the 7th respondent.

O.S. No. 589 of 1992 (District Munsif Court, Namakkal):

5. In the plaint it had been stated that the suit properties originally belonged to the father of the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs, by name Syed Ismail. The father, Syed Ismail died on 23.08.1971. Thereafter, the properties devolved to the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs and to their sisters. It was further stated that a registered partition deed was entered into among the 1st to 7th plaintiffs on 10.03.1982. According to the said partition deed, the A schedule property was allotted to the 1st plaintiff and the B schedule property was allotted to the 2nd plaintiff. They were enjoying the said properties to the exclusion of everybody else.

6. It was further stated that the defendant had his property on the West side at Kumarachetti Street. He had offered to purchase the property belonging to the plaintiffs, but the offer was rejected. Thereafter, he tried to encroach into the property. The plaintiffs had conveyed the 1st and 2nd items in B schedule property to the 8th plaintiff. However, the defendant had encroached into the said item Nos. 1 and 2 of B schedule property. It was therefore stated that a declaratory relief should be granted with respect to A and B schedule properties and recovery of possession with respect to item Nos. 1 and 2 of B schedule property.

7. A written statement was filed by the defendant. He denied the assertions of the plaintiffs. It was stated that he was entitled for A and B schedule pr