The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 prohibits transfers during the pendency of litigation, preventing subsequent purchasers from defeating a plaintiff's rights if they acquired property post-suit.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

This First Appeal is preferred by the 2nd defendant / purchaser against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2020 made in O.S. No. 69 of 2011 on the file of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, whereby the suit for specific performance and permanent injunction was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The case of the Plaintiff: The plaintiff sought specific performance of the sale agreement dated 13.08.2010 (Ex. A2) and consequential permanent injunction. According to him, after the earlier agreement dated 06.07.2010 (Ex. A1) under which Rs.2,00,000/- had been paid as advance, a fresh agreement, Ex. A2, was executed on payment of a further Rs.3,00,000/-, making the total advance Rs.5,00,000/-. Under Ex. A2, the balance sale consideration of Rs.17,00,000/- was payable, of which Rs.15,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed and the remaining Rs.2,00,000/- after harvest of turmeric, with two months fixed for completion. The plaintiff pleaded that time was not the essence of the contract, that he was always ready and willing to perform his part, and that the 1^stdefendant, despite redeeming the mortgage, failed to appear for registration on 11.10.2010, compelling him to issue telegrams and legal notices. He further alleged that, during the pendency of the suit, the 1^st defendant executed a sale deed dated 25.02.2011 in favour of the 2^nd defendant, who in turn created a mortgage in favour of the 3^rd defendant and executed a power of attorney in favour of the 4^th defendant. According to the plaintiff, all these transactions were sham and were hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant died, and his legal representatives, namely his wives, were impleaded as defendants 5 and 6.On these pleadings, he sought execution and registration of the sale deed by defendants 5 and 6, delivery of possession and permanent injunction.

4. Case of the Defendants: The 1st defendant contested the suit as false and not maintainable. Though admitting his title, the agreements dated 06.07.2010 and 13.08.2010, and receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- in all, he contended that time was the essence of the contract and that the plaintiff failed to perform within the stipulated period by not coming with funds on 11.10.2010. He denied the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness, questioned his financial capacity, alleged suppression of material facts.In the additional written statement the 1^st defendant disputed the genuineness of the agreement dated 13.08.2010 by claiming that his signature had been obtained in a drunken state, he further contended that the mortgage had already been discharged in 2007, attacked the plaintiff’s version regarding the telegrams and payments, described the property particulars as vague, suggested that the transaction was in substance only a loan transaction, and sought dismissal of the suit.

5. The 2^nd defendant who is the lispendent lite purchaser also challenged the maintainability of the suit and pleaded suppression of material facts. He relied on an earlier agreement of sale dated 07.06.2009 (Ex. B6) said to have been entered into with the 1st defendant, contended that the plaintiff was aware of the same, and claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for