IMPORTANT POINT
Doctrine of lis pendens - Principle envisaged in Section 52 of T P Act is in accordance with equity, good conscience or justice because status quo has to be maintained in respect of property till final disposal as otherwise a chaotic situation will prevail leading to multiplicity of proceedings

Headnote:
(1) Legal heir of property –Title suit – Order vacating suit property –Declaratory relief of a legal status of a party will operate retrospectively unless judgment restricts its operation to particular date or prospectively – Existence or non-existence of a legal status between parties relates to its occurrence in past and Court by way of declaration only recognizes such existence or non-existence of legal status with retrospectivity, but it will not be conferring such status for this first time by way of decree – Judgment and decree in O.S.No.93/1998 relates back to date of birth of Defendant 3/D3 as per Ex.A1-birth certificate – When claims of parties are tested, as on dates of exhibits A1 to A4 Sale Deeds, D3 being daughter of Sarveswara Rao, she was actual owner of subject properties but not C.Venkat Rao and his son – They had no right to convey title in favour of plaintiff. [Paras 13, 14, 15]
(2) Title suit - Right to disposal – As regards claims of plaintiff claims that D3 gave up her right in plaint schedule property, there are a number of suspicious circumstances shrouded Ex.A10 endorsement – It is unregistered document purportedly endorsed on reverse of Ex.A8 sale agreement – Said document being spells that D3 relinquished her rights in plaint A schedule property, it requires registration – As per Ex.A7, GPA was given power only to execute registered Sale Deed but no authority was given to him to enter into agreements, and compromises with third parties – D3 was not signatory on Ex.A10 – Ex.A10 cannot be believed to be genuine document – 3rd defendant, who inherited estate of her father, has executed exhibits B25 to B29 in favour of 1st defendant in year 2000 itself and conveyed valid title – Long thereafter, she gave up her claim in items 1 to 4 of plaint A schedule for whatever reason – As on date of giving up her claim and dismissal of suit in respect of plaint A schedule, 3rd defendant had no legal title over said property as she already conveyed same in favour of 1st defendant. [Paras 16, 17, 18]
(3) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 – Lis pendens - Execution of sale deed – Sale Deeds executed by Venkata Rao and his son shall be construed as subject to final result in O.P.No.215/1992 – Mere dismissal of O.P. and injunction petition for default cannot be construed as conferring right on Venkata Rao to alienate suit properties – After dismissal of plaintiff’s suit for declaration and possession of property and before filing appeal, if defendants alienate said property, such alienation will be susceptible to final outcome in appeal – Exs.A1 to A4 are subservient to doctrine of lis pendens enunciated in Section 52 of Act – Principle envisaged in Section 52 of Act is in accordance with equity, good conscience or justice because status quo has to be maintained in respect of property till final disposal as otherwise a chaotic situation will prevail leading to multiplicity of proceedings – Judgment of trial Court is not sustainable either on facts or in law and liable to be set aside. [Para 19]
Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.—Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2016 in O.S.No.39/2002 passed by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, decreeing plaintiff’s suit and directing the defendants to vacate the plaint A and B schedule property and handover the same to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant filed the instant appeal.

2. The facts which led to file this appeal by the 1st defendant are succinctly thus:—

(a) Admittedly, the plaint schedule property in an extent of 864 square yards with constructions thereon situated in Vijayawada belongs to one Chirravuru Sundarayya Seetharavamma which she obtained under a Gift Deed dated 14.10.1921 executed by her parents towards ‘Pasupu Kumkuma’. Her husband is C.Sarveswara Rao. Seetharavamma died intestate and issueless in the year 1974 and consequently her husband C.Sarveswara Rao succeeded her property. While so, the said C.Sarveswara Rao also died on 13.06.1980. To this extent, the facts are not in dispute.

(b) While so, as per plaint averments, C.Sarveswara Rao died issueless and intestate and therefore, Chirravuru Venkata Rao, the father of 2nd defendant and brother of C.Sarveswara Rao, succeeded his properties including the plaint schedule property. His further case is that there arose some disputes among the relations of C.Sarveswara Rao resulted in filing of suits O.S.Nos.290/1980, 331/1981 and 460/1981 in the Civil Courts, Vijayawada. At the intervention of elders, the parties compromised and they entered into a registered Partition Deed dated 12.12.1984. As per the terms of said partition, C.Venkata Rao got 864 sq. yards and he sold a portion of the said property to others on 31.03.1981. The remaining portion of 670 sq. yards of the site with superstructures thereon was sold by C.Venkata Rao and his son Ramana Murthy / 2nd defendant to the plaintiff in the year 1996 under four Sale Deeds covered by Ex.A1 to A4. Thus, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.

(c) While so, 3rd defendant claiming herself as daughter of late C.Sarveswara Rao born through his third wife Lakshmi and that she succeeded the estate of C.Sarveswara Rao, filed Pauper suit in O.P.No.215/1992 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against C.Venkata Rao, his son C.Ramana Murthy and some others in respect of the plaint schedule property and sought for recovery of A to D schedule properties in that suit.

(d) Before filing the suit, the 3rd defendant executed Sale Agreement dated 24.01.1993 in favour of Devineni Baji Prasad in respect of plaint schedule property in OP No.215/1992. Thereafter she executed GPA in favour of one Ayodhya Balakrishna to deal with the Court litigation in OP No.215/1992. As she was not the daughter of Sri Sarveswara Rao and she had no chance of succeeding in the suit, she entered into a compromise with Sri Venkata Rao and Ramana Murthy through her GPA by taking substantial amount from them and cancelled the Sale Agreement and returned the advance amount received from her vendee. Then she remained absent in Court and O.P.No.215/1992 was dismissed and the interim injunction petition was also dismissed.

(e) Thereafter, C. Venkata Rao and C.Ramana Murthy sold the plaint ‘A’ schedule property in favour of plaintiff in 1996 under four Sale Deeds covered by Exs.A1 to A4.

(f) The schedule property consists of ground and first floor. In a portion of first floor the 3rd defendant was in occupation and she promised to vacate and hand over to the plaintiff, but she failed to do so and claimed some more amount from the plaintiff to hand over the possession. While so, there are several tenants in the ground floor. The 1st defendant was running Venkataramana Travels in a portion of the property as a tenant. The plaintiff issued notice dated 26.03.1999 to the tenants to vacate their respective portions except to the 1st defendant, as at that time, he took initiation to settle the matt