The doctrine of lis pendens overrides the rights of bona fide purchasers when they acquire property during pending litigation concerning the same property, as established by case law.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Jain, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 96 CPC has been preferred by the plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.9.1986 passed by the Court of 7th Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in O.S. No. 200 of 1982 Ashok Kumar vs. Tejvir Singh and others , whereby the plaintiff 's suit for the relief of specific performance of agreement for sale and possession dated 03.9.1981 has been dismissed and the suit for the alternative relief, for the recovery of Rs. 41,000/- , i.e. earnest money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1 along with an interest @17% per annum has been decreed.

Plaint Case

2. The plaintiff/appellant filed O.S. No. 200 of 1982 against the defendant respondents with the averments that the defendant no.1 Tejvir Singh is the bhumidhar of the disputed land, which was agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs. 79,500/- in favour of plaintiff and a registered agreement to sell was executed on 03.9.1981 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 accepted Rs. 36,000/- at the time of the execution of agreement to sell and Rs. 5,000/- at the time of registration of the agreement to sell, before the concerned sub- registrar and the remaining amount of Rs. 38,500/- was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1 at the time of execution of sale deed in his favour.

3. It was further averred by the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 had undertaken to obtain certificate from the income tax department, before the execution of sale deed and also undertaken that till 02.11.1981 the sale deed would be executed in plaintiffs favour. It was further agreed between the parties that if defendant no.1 did not execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration then the plaintiff will have the right to get the sale deed executed through court. It was further averred that within the agreed period of limitation, the plaintiff requested the defendant no.1 many times to accept the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed but on one pretext or the other, the sale deed was not executed in favour of the plaintiff.

4. It was further averred by the plaintiff that in terms of the agreement to sell, he always remained ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in his favour after paying the balance sale consideration, and he was still ready and willing to do so. It was further averred by the plaintiff that he gave a registered notice dated 25.9.1981 to the defendant no.1, to inform the plaintiff through registered post, on which date he was ready and willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration, so as to enable him to reach the office of sub-registrar, Hapur. This notice was received by the defendant no.1 on 30.9.1981, which was neither replied to nor the sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff.

5. It was further averred by the plaintiff that orally also he requested defendant no.1 many times to execute the sale deed in his favour on which, an assurance was given by the defendant, that he will execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 02.11.1981 before the sub- registrar, Hapur but when the plaintiff went to the office of the above sub-registrar on 2.11.1981, the defendant was not present, but the plaintiff marked his attendance befo