The court reaffirmed the doctrine of lis pendens in specific performance cases, establishing that subsequent purchasers with knowledge of prior agreements cannot claim independent rights.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by defendant No.2 directed against the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.4672/1998, whereby learned Judge has decreed the suit granting specific performance of contract and defendant No.1 was directed to execute registered sale deed in terms of agreement of sale vide Ex.P-1 within two months. Defendant No.2 who claims to be a purchaser is assailing the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Facts leading to the case are as under:

The suit schedule property is a residential house bearing Municipal No.142/1, comprising ground and first floors. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 15.06.1994, marked as Ex.P-1. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit property and had agreed to sell the same for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,75,000/-. The plaintiff asserts that a substantial portion of the sale consideration, namely Rs.4,50,000/-, was paid as advance pursuant to the execution of the agreement, leaving a balance of Rs.25,000/- to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. According to the plaintiff, the period stipulated for performance under the agreement was four years. Alleging that despite issuance of a legal notice dated 19.05.1998 calling upon defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed, there was no compliance or response, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the present suit for enforcement of the contract.

4. Defendant No.1, though disputing the execution and genuineness of the suit agreement at Ex.P-1, did not contest the proceedings by filing a written statement or leading evidence. Defendant No.2, who claims under a subsequent transaction and is admittedly a pendente lite purchaser, entered contest. Defendant No.2 contended that the plaintiff was not an agreement holder but only a mortgagee/tenant and that defendant No.1 had earlier mortgaged the property in favour of one J. Parasmal. It was further contended that defendant No.2 discharged the alleged mortgage liability by paying a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- to J.Parasmal, who, claiming to be the General Power of Attorney holder of defendant No.1, executed a registered sale deed dated 17.05.2003 in favour of defendant No.2. While opposing the plaintiff’s claim under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 , defendant No.2 asserted that his sale deed relates back to a prior agreement to sell dated 28.06.1995 allegedly executed by defendant No.1 in his favour and therefore, the subsequent conveyance in his favour is not hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. On these grounds, dismissal of the suit was sought.

5. The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed appropriate issues. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 adduced both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective stands. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, discarded Ex.D-39, the unregistered mortgage deed relied upon by defendant No.2, and recorded a finding that the plaintiff had successfully established the execution of the agreement for sale dated 15.06.1994 and payment of advance consideration. While answering Issue No.3 in the negative, the Trial Court held that defendant No.2 failed to substantiate his contention that the transaction in favour of