IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 5 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 7037 of 2025 MOHD RAEES VALI AND OTHERS Versus SUKHVINDAR SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shashank Shekhar - Senior Advocate with Shri Samresh Katare -

Advocate for petitioners.

ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved th by the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the Executing Court of 30 District Judge, Jabalpur, thereby rejecting the application/objection of the petitioners under Section 47 CPC submitted before the executing Court. The Executing Court has discarded the objections of the petitioners to the execution of the decree holding that the petitioners being subsequent purchasers after passing of decree, hence, have no right to object to the decree as they are hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Consequently, the Executing Court has directed registration of the sale deed in compliance of the judgement and decree of specific performance of agreement.

2. The counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued before this Court that the very agreement of the decree holder i.e. present respondent No.1 was barred by law being hit by Section 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 because it was in respect of a land which had been declared to have vested in the Government as per provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short hereinafter referred to as "Ceiling Act, 1976"). It is argued that once the land had vested in the State Government, then there was prohibition on transfer of urban property and further in view of Section 5 of the Ceiling Act, 1976, as per sub-section (2) and (3) thereof, any transfer of excess vacant land is deemed to be null and void. It is further contended that as per Section 10(3) of the said Act, upon notification of the land as surplus, the land is deemed to be vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date of such notification/declaration under Section 10 (3).

3. It is, therefore, contended that the agreement having been executed in favour of the decree holder in the year 1998, though the land had stood vested in the State Government in the year 1995 upon notification under Section 10(3), the agreement was void, and no suit could have been filed and decreed for enforcement of such an agreement. Therefore, it is contended that the Executing Court has erred in applying Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act by saving the agreement, which was void. The learned senior counsel further referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomson Press (India) Limited vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and others, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 397 to contend that transfer of property pendente lite is not void ab initio in any case. In similar terms, judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7305 of 2024 (Yogesh Goyanka vs. Govind & Ors.) is relied upon wherein in paragraph 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not render all transfers pendente lite to be ab initio void and it only renders rights arising from such transfers as subservient to rights of the parties to the pending litigation. Further reliance is made on judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Howrah Daw Mangla Hat B.B. Samity vs. Pronab Kumar Daw, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 534 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the executing Court can allow objection under Section 47 of CPC to executability of the decree if it is found that the decree is void ab initio or it is a nullity or having passed in ignorance of legal provisions. On these assertions, it is prayed to set aside the order of the executing Court and to hold that the decree was inexecutable being contrary to interest of the petitioners who have purchased the land from the original owner after the land had