The doctrine of lis pendens applies to suits for specific performance, limiting rights of subsequent purchasers unless they are permitted to intervene. The court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the impleading petition of a bonafide purchaser.

JUDGEMENT :

(G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.)

This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance.

2.The plaintiff / Prabakaran entered into sale agreement on 25.07.2011 with the defendant / Subburaj. To specifically enforce the sale agreement, Prabakaran filed O.S.No.26 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur on 13.03.2013. His case was that the defendant agreed to sell the suit property measuring 12 acres and 72 cents in his favour for a sale consideration of Rs.41,23,000/-. According to him, a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- was paid as advance on 25.07.2011 and further a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid on 10.10.2011. Since the defendant did not come forward to conclude the transaction, he filed the said suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement stating that the time for concluding the transaction ended on 11.11.2011. Hence, the defendant sent legal notice dated 15.12.2011 cancelling the agreement itself. The defendant questioned the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff failed to adhere to the terms of the contract. The defendant also claimed that the plaintiff had forfeited whatever advance amount, he had paid.

4.Based on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as four issues. The defendant, after selling the suit property in favour of P.Marimuthu / appellant herein on 16.10.2015, did not take part in the proceedings. He was set ex parte on 27.02.2019. On 13.03.2019, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. The suit was reserved for judgment. At that stage, Marimuthu filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2019 on 18.03.2019 for re-opening the suit proceedings and for impleading himself as the second defendant in the suit. The impleading petition filed by the appellant herein was contested by the plaintiff. On 18.07.2019, both the IAs were dismissed. Even before Marimuthu could contest the said order by filing a civil revision petition, the suit came to be decreed as prayed for on 24.07.2019. Challenging the same, this third party appeal came to be filed under Section 96 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE by the appellant.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned senior counsel for the first respondent / plaintiff and the learned counsel for the vendor / defendant.

6.The points that arise for determination are as follows:-

(1) Whether the subsequent purchaser is entitled to get himself impleaded in the suit proceedings and whether the Court below erred in dismissing the petitions filed by him ?

(2) Whether the petitions filed by the subsequent purchaser after the suit was reserved for judgment was maintainable?

(3) In the event of this Court setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, and impleading the appellant as the second defendant in the said suit, what are the defences open to him to canvass?

Though, the appellant claims that he is a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, yet, he cannot claim any benefit under Section 19(b) of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 (unamended). This is because, the transfer did not take place before filing of the suit but during the pendency of the suit. In other words, the appellant was a transferee pendente lite. Therefore, the doctrine of lis pendens will operate against the appellant.

7.The doctrine of lis pendens is em