Arumugam VS Natarajan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

S.VIMALA
Arumugam – Appellant
Versus
Natarajan – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. S. Parthasarathy, Sr. Advocate for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates.
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. A.K. Kumarasamy, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

S. Vimala, J.— The locus standi of the pendente lite purchaser to raise the plea/defence of bona fide purchaser for value without notice of earlier transaction (a plea which is available to a purchaser, but not during the pending litigation) is under challenge. The protection under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act is not available to a pendente lite purchaser by virtue of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, is the main contention raised in the second appeal. In other words, the contention is that Section 19 (1) of the Specific Relief Act, does not override Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

1.1. There may be innocent purchasers who purchase the property bona fide without notice of the earlier agreement/transaction. These purchasers might have purchased it either during pending litigation or no litigation pending. With regard to pending litigation, the subsequent purchasers may have notice or may not have the notice of the lis. Still the protection available to a purchaser during non-litigation period is not available to a purchaser during litigation is the main contention raised in this second appeal.

1.2. In the event of conflict between, the doct