Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2633
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Anila Ann Kuruvilla - Appellant
Versus
Menakabai S. Nikam - Respondent
A.S. No. 69 of 2025, C.M.P. Nos. 1211, 1212 of 2025
Decided On : 17-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.M. Valsala
For the Respondent: R. Nirmaladevi
The court affirmed the application of the lis pendens doctrine, ruling that property transfers during litigation are void, establishing plaintiffs' ownership and rights to seek injunction.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act - Section 52 - Doctrine of lis pendens - Appeal against dismissal of suit for declaration and permanent injunction - Trial Court dismissed on grounds of limitation and status of sixth defendant as bona fide purchaser - Court found that sixth defendant acquired property pendente lite, making transfer void under lis pendens - Plaintiffs' title not disputed, original documents established possession - Decree upheld in favor of plaintiffs. (Paras 1, 13, 14, 20)
(B) Limitation - Suit not barred by limitation as plaintiff approached court after cause of action arose - Timing of the possession transfer crucial to claim validity. (Paras 10, 20)
(C) Ownership - Plaintiffs established ownership and documentation thereby demonstrating right to abide by prior court decrees irrespective of new transactions during pendency. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of a property via an agreement made with a prior owner who later died, but faced a challenge from defendants who sold the property to a third party during litigation.
Findings of Court:
The plaintiffs are entitled to ownership and a permanent injunction against the defendants who attempted to disturb their possession of the property; the trial court's dismissal was erroneous.
Issues: Key issues included the validity of ownership claims, whether the suit was barred by limitation, and the status of the third-party purchaser.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that any transfer made during litigation affecting room title is limited by the doctrine of lis pendens, emphasizing that the plaintiffs maintained consistent, rightful possession.
Result: Appeal allowed; trial court's judgment set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to original suit for property declaration. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. trial court's reasoning deemed flawed. (Para 8 , 20) |
| 3. arguments on plaintiff's right to property. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. issues of bona fides and lis pendens. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 19) |
| 5. legal principles of lis pendens established. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. appeal granted; trial court's judgment reversed. (Para 21) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Challenge has been made to the decree and judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction, in the present appeal.
2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court.
3......
[i] It is the case of the plaintiffs that an extent of 1508 sq.ft. of vacant land is a part and parcel of larger extent of land measuring 3020 sq.ft. which was originally owned by one Ranganayaki Ammal along with her husband Mr.D.P.Krishnaswamy Naidu, they sold the property as plot No.4 measuring to an extent of 3020 sq.ft. by a sale deed dated 22.01.1972 in favour of one Venugopal and Giridhar Babu. Thereafter, an extent of land measuring 1508 sq.ft. has been sold in favour of Subash Kumar S.Nikam, son of the first defendant and husband of the second defendant and father of the defendants 3 to 5 by way of a sale deed dated 12.03.1984. The said Subash Kumar S.Nikam approached K.M.Thomas, the father of the plaintiffs and agreed to sell the property for a total sale consideration of Rs.30,000/-. The sale consideration has been paid on various dates and original documents have also been handed over to the plaintiffs' father. The plaintiffs' father was also put in possession of the property as part performance of the contract. The remaining sale consideration of Rs.5000/- alone has to be paid.
[ii] When the matter stood thus, the said Subash Kumar S.Nikam suffered paralytic stroke and he was taking treatment. The remaining sale consideration has also been paid on 27.09.1991. Subash Kumar Nikam died on 21.07.1992. Therefore, a legal notice has been issued by the father of the plaintiffs to the second defendant on 29.11.1999 and filed the suit in O.S.No.8015 of 1999. The second defendant, wife of the said Subash Kumar S.Nikam has entered appearance and filed written statement. Disputing the agreement, she wantonly did not disclose the names and details of other legal heirs. Having filed the written statement, she remained exparte. Therefore, the suit has been decreed on 09.07.2002. Thereafter, Execution Petition in E.P.No.48 of 2004 has been filed and sale deed has also been executed in favour of the father of the plaintiffs, K.M.Thomas, by the Court on 08.02.2006. The father of the plaintiffs died on 07.04.2017. As the possession has already been handed over, the plaintiffs are in possession of the property. While so, the seventh defendant with his henchmen tired to damage the compound wall of the suit property on 25.11.2017. After his attempt to encroach the property, the plaintiffs came to know that the legal heirs of Subash Kumar S.Nikam had created various documents and dealt with the suit property during the pendency of the suit. Hence, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
4. The defendants 1 to 5 remained exparte and they have not filed filed any written statement.
5. The sixth defendant had purchased the property during the pendency of the suit filed for specific performance. His specific contention is that he is in absolute possession of the suit property which is a vacant land to an extent of 1508 sq.ft. which is part of the larger extent of land measuring 3020 sq.ft., which was originally owned by one Ranganayaki Ammal along with her husband. It is his contention that since he had purchased the property, he is in possession of the suit property. According to him, he had purchased the suit property after exercising due diligence and the alleged decree came to be passed after three years on 09.07.2002 and the execution petition has been filed in t
