A sale of property during the pendency of a suit relating to that property is void as against the rights of any other party to the suit under the decree or order that may be made in the suit, but the sale is valid and operative as between the parties to the transfer.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Patiala, who rejected the objections filed by the petitioners and held that the respondent-decree holder was entitled to recover actual physical possession pursuant to the decree for specific performance passed in his favour.

2. The matrix of the case is as under :-

Capt. Chuni Lal was owner of land measuring 96 Bighas 6 Biswa. He entered into an agreement to sell this land with the respondent for Rs. 26,000.00 on September 27, 1966 through his daughter and attorney Neena Ahuja. Rs. 10,000.00 was paid as earnest money and the balance was to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed which was to be executed on or before February 28, 1967. The vendor did not execute the sale deed even by the extended date. The vendor entered into an agreement to sell, with the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the judgment-debtors) on July 21, 1967 with regard to the suit land. The sale was to be executed on or before January 1, 1968.

3 The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the decree holder) filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell, dated September 27, 1966 against the vendor Capt. Chuni Lal. The judgment-debtors were also made party defendants in the suit. The suit for specific performance was decreed and it was held that the decree-holder would be entitled to actual physical possession of the disputed land in execution of the decree for specific performance. On appeal, the first appellate Court reversed this finding and that the decree-holder would not be entitled to actual physical possession of the suit land in execution of the decree for specific performance. The decree-holder will only be entitled to a simple decree of specific performance. The judgment-debtors still aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court came to this Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 821 of 1981 which was dismissed by judgment and decree dated March 13, 1984. The High Court negatived their plea that the agreement to sell executed in their favour was in recognition of their pre-existing right to pre-empt the land in suit. It was also held that they were not bona fide purchasers for value and consideration and that the sale in their favour was hit by the Rule of lis pendens. However, in the concluding paragraph, it was observed that the question whether the decree-holder is entitled to actual physical possession or not, will be decided by the executing Court. On the basis of these observations made in the judgment by this Court, the judgment-debtors filed objections in the executing Court, inter alia, on the ground that they were in possession as tenants before they entered into an agreement to sell with the landowner on July 21, 1967 and that the decree-holder was not entitled to actual physical possession from them.

4. The learned executing Court on evidence found that some of the judgment-debtors were in possession as tenants on the land sold to them. The sale effected by the landowner in their favour was valid between the parties thereto and that on their acquiring ownership rights, the lessee rights merged with the bigger rights of ownership and they could not claim that they were still the tenants on the suit land and defeat the claim of the decree-holder for recording actual physical possession in execution of the decree for specific performance.

5. The finding recorded by the learned executing Court that some of the judgment-debtors were tenants on the land sold to them was not assailed before me and I do not find any ground to take a different view than the one executed by the learned executing court.

6. The principal questions which arise for determination are :-

(i) Whether the sale effected in favour of the judgment-debtors during the pendency of the civil suit filed by the decree-holder is hit by the rule of lis pendens and wipe out the sale altogether?

(ii) On lessee