1. Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land based on an executed contract with payment of earnest money. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 78270
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Virinder Aggarwal, J
Partap Singh – Appellant
Versus
Harbhajan Singh – Respondent
RSA-81-1997 (O&M)
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. B.S.Jaswal
For the Respondents: Mr. Parveen Chauhan
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. B.S.Jaswal
For the Respondents: Mr. Parveen Chauhan
A transferee pendente lite is bound by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and cannot claim protection as a bona fide purchaser or challenge the contractual readiness and willingness of the original parties.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 52 - Doctrine of lis pendens - Transfer of property during pendency of suit - A transferee pendente lite acquires title subject to the outcome of the pending proceedings and cannot claim independent or superior rights over the transferor. The plea of being a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice cannot override the statutory mandate of Section 52, as the doctrine is based on the principle that the subject matter of litigation should not be altered to the prejudice of any party. (Paras 13-17)
(B) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - The plea of readiness and willingness is personal to the contracting parties (vendor and vendee) and cannot be challenged by a subsequent purchaser whose rights are purely derivative. (Para 18)
(C) Interpretation of Contracts - Ambiguity in performance date - Where a contract contains minor discrepancies in calendrical expressions (e.g., Bikrami vs. Sann), the Court must adopt a purposive interpretation to uphold the contract rather than invalidate it. If the intention of the parties is clear and part performance is evident, technical ambiguities regarding the date do not render the contract unenforceable. (Paras 19-20)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement to sell dated 03.06.1991 executed by defendants No. 1 and 2. While defendant No. 2 performed his part, defendant No. 1 failed to do so and subsequently alienated the property to the appellant (defendant No. 3) via a sale deed dated 24.01.1992, one day after the suit was instituted. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concurrently decreed the suit for specific performance, rejecting the appellant's claim of being a bona fide purchaser.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the agreement to sell was duly proved and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness were established. The appellant's transfer occurred pendente lite, thereby attracting Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which neutralizes the plea of being a bona fide purchaser. The alleged ambiguity in the date of performance was deemed insignificant in light of the parties' intentions and part performance.
Issues: Whether the appellant was a bona fide purchaser protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act; whether the agreement was void due to ambiguity in the performance date; and whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract.
Ratio Decidendi: A transferee pendente lite steps into the shoes of the vendor and cannot resist a decree for specific performance or challenge the readiness and willingness of the original parties. Courts should lean towards enforcing contracts using the principle of business efficacy rather than defeating them on technical grounds.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
- contract law
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claimed as bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Respondent argued appellant bound by lis pendens as a purchaser pendente lite. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Courts below concurrently proved the agreement, rejected fraud, and found plaintiff ready and willing. Appellant's claim as bona fide purchaser is neutralized by lis pendens. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. A transferee pendente lite is bound by the outcome of the pending suit under Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, regardless of notice. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 )
5. Appeal dismissed; concurrent findings affirmed; decree for specific performance upheld. (Para 22 , 23 )
6. Can a subsequent purchaser pendente lite claim protection as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice?
No. The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, binds such transferee to the suit's outcome, negating such protection. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 )
7. Can an ambiguity in the date of performance based on different calendrical systems render a contract unenforceable?
No. Courts adopt a purposive interpretation to uphold the contract, preferring a commercially sensible construction over one that invalidates it. (Para 19 , 20 )
8. Can a subsequent purchaser challenge the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance?
No. The plea of readiness and willingness is personal to the vendor and cannot be raised by a derivative title holder. (Para 18 )
9. What is the scope of a second appeal under the Punjab Courts Act, 1918?
No question of law is required to be framed; the appeal is not governed by Section 100 CPC. (Para 9 )
VIRINDER AGGARWAL,J
1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant No.3 against the judgment and decree dated 08.10.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant was dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 22.02.1994 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ajnala, has been upheld whereby the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed.
BACKGROUND FACTS
2. The plaintiff/respondent no.1 instituted a suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 03.06.1991 (Ex.P1) executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in respect of land measuring 38 kanals 17 marlas. An amount of Rs.1,11,500/- was paid as earnest money. It was further stipulated therein that the sale deed was to be executed on “15th Maghar, 1991 Bikrami. Further, it was pleaded that defendant No.2 honoured the agreement by executing a sale deed qua his share and therefore did not contested the suit, whereas defendant No.1 failed to perform his obligation and, during pendency of the suit, alienated the property in favour of defendant No.3 (present appellant) vide sale deed dated 24.01.1992 (Ex.D1). The plaintiff asserted continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and sought enforcement of the agreement. Upon notice, suit was contested by defendant no.1 and appellant/defendant no.3 who filed their separate written statements and denied the allegations made in plaint.
3. Upon a meticulous examination of the pleadings and the competing claims of the parties, the learned Trial Court proceeded to frame the following issues for determination:-
1. Whether defendants No.1 and 2 agreed to sell the disputed land and executed agreement to sell dated 03.06.1991 in favour of the plaintiff after receiving an amount of Rs.11,500/- as earnest money? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP
3. If Issue No.1 is proved, whether execution of agreement dated 03.06.1991 is result of fraudulent/misrepresentation and is without consideration as alleged? OPD
4. Is this suit is not maintainable? OPD
5. Whether defendant No.3 is a bona fide purchaser of the suit land for valuable consideration without notice and as such is protected u nder Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit through his act and conduct? OPD
7. Relief.
4. Both parties were afforded full and adequate opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims and defences. The learned trial Court, upon a comprehensive evaluation of evidence, held that the agreement to sell stood duly proved and was supported by valid consideration. The plea of fraud was rejected. The plaintiff was found to be continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defence of bona fide purchaser set up by defendant No.3 was also negated. Consequently, the suit for specific performance was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent no.1. The findings of the learned Trial Court are based on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, including the testimony of PW-1 Sawaran Singh, marginal witness to the agreement, and PW-2 Harbhajan Singh (plaintiff), as well as the evidence led by the defendants including DW-4 Vijay Kumar, the stamp vendor, and DW-5 Raghbir Singh (defendant No.1), who, significantly, admitted his thumb impressions on the agreement though attempted to explain the same on grounds of fraud.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, only defendant No.3 preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, affirming the findings recorded by the Trial Court. The learned First Appellate Court, while re-appreciating the evidence including Ex.P1 and Ex.D1, concurred with the findings that the
