Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SREE SUDHA, J.
Sri J.Venkateshwar Reddy and another - Appellant
Vs.
Sudi Bala Reddy and another - Respondent
Appeal Suit No.92 of 2020
Decided on : 01-04-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and parties involved (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. applicability of order xxi rule 97 cpc (Para 8) |
| 4. court's view on competing decrees (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. importance of agreement dates over execution dates (Para 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 6. doctrine of lis pendens does not apply (Para 13 , 23) |
| 7. transfer rights and their precedence (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19) |
| 8. rights crystallized through earlier agreements (Para 18 , 20 , 21) |
| 9. final judgment and decree (Para 22 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
P.SREE SUDHA, J.
This appeal suit is filed against the Order dated 10.02.2020 in E.A.No.20 of 2015 in E.P.No.176 of 2015 in O.S.No.60 of 2006, passed by the learned II-Additional District Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
2. The appellants/claim petitioners are the third parties to the suit. They are claiming the subject property basing on the agreement of sale dated 06.07.2005 executed in their favour by the original owner i.e., respondent No.2/JDr. A decree of specific performance granted in favour of the appellants/claim petitioners herein against the respondent No.2/JDr in O.S.No.297 of 2006 dated 25.06.2008. Pursuant to the said decree, the respondent No.2/JDr and her family members have executed a registered sale deed vide document No.2332/2013 dated 13.03.2013 in favour of the appellants/claim petitioners and thus they claim that they have become the absolute owners and possessors of the subject property.
3. Whereas, the respondent No.1/DHr i.e., subsequent purchaser, had obtained the agreement of sale for the same subject property from the respondent No.2/JDr on 23.10.2005, which was culminated in filing a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.60 of 2006, that resulted in the decree levied in execution.
4. Appellants herein have filed a claim petition before the executing Court under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC to dismiss the execution petition filed by the respondent No.1/DHr. The respondent No.1/DHr had also filed the counter in the said petition. The executing Court after conducting enquiry vide Orders dated 10.02.2020, dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants herein in E.A.No.20 of 2015 in E.P.No.176 of 2015, holding that the suit instituted by the appellants is later in point of time and the sale deed dated 13.03.2013 was obtained after the degree in favour of respondent No.1/DHr. Therefore, the claim petition filed by the appellants is not maintainable as they are the purchasers during the pendent lite and they are not bona fide purchasers for value. Aggrieved by the said Order, appellants/claim petitioners preferred the present appeal suit.
5. A list of important dates and events is table hereunder:
| Date | Event | Remarks |
| 06.07.2005 | Agreement of sale by respondent No.2 in favour of appellants for an extent of Acs. 2.20 gts in Sy.No.665 | Ex.A6 |
| 23.10.2005 | Agreement of Sale by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 | Ex.R1 |
| 16.01.2006 | Gift deed by respondent No.2 in favour of K.Radhika for an extent of 0.25 gts in Sy.No.665 | Ex.A8 |
| 16.01.2006 | Gift deed by respondent No.2 in favour of P.Devi for an extent of 0.25 gts in Sy.No.665 | Ex.A9 |
| 16.01.2006 | Gift deed by respondent No.2 in favour of A.Suresh for an extent of 0.25 gts in Sy.No.665 | Ex.A10 |
| 16.01.2006 | Gift deed by respondent No.2 in favour of A.Balraj for an extent of 0.25 gts in Sy.No.665 | Ex.A11 |
| 17.02.2006 | O.S.No.297 of 2006 is filed by appellants against respondent No.2 and the donees for reliefs of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 06.07.2005 and cancellation of the four gift deeds | Ex.A16 |
| 06.02.2006 | O.S.No.60 of 2006 filed by respondent No.1 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 23.10.2005 | Ex.R7 |
| 25.06.2008 | Decree of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 06.07.2005 and also for cancellation of four Gift Deeds dated 16.01.2006 in O.S.No.297 of 2006, in favour of appellants and against the respondent No.2 and the donees under the gift deeds. | Ex.A5 |
| 23.06.2011 | Decree of specific performance granted in O.S.No.60 o | |
The doctrine of lis pendens does not affect prior subsisting rights, allowing innocent purchasers to enforce their claims based on preceding agreements.
Agreement to sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Once sale agreement is proved and subsequent sale was during pendency of suit hit by doctrine of lis pendens, decree for specific performance can b....
(1) Lis Pendens – Section 52 of T.P. Act has no application where transfer in favour of subsequent purchaser is not after filing of suit but before filing of suit for specific performance.(2) Resista....
The decree in a previous suit remains binding and under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the transfer of property during pending litigation does not affect rights to the property after the....
The doctrine of lis pendens applies to subsequent purchasers; their rights are subordinate to those of the decree holder in a specific performance case.
A pendente lite purchaser cannot assert independent title in execution proceedings, as the doctrine of lis pendens prevails over claims of bona fide purchasers under the Specific Relief Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
