The doctrine of lis pendens does not apply unless the suit directly concerns rights in the property involved.

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has laid challenge to an order dated 29.06.2017 passed by the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.1 has been allowed and the attachment order for the suit property has been set aside.

3. The appellant filed O.S. No.205/2004 before the Trial Court, which was a suit for recovery against respondent No.2. In the said suit, the appellant also filed an application seeking attachment of the property of respondent No.2, situated in Pannaipatti, Munnilaikottai Village, Dindigul Taluk, namely, the subject property. The Trial Court initially directed respondent No.2 to furnish security, which was not furnished. In the meantime, respondent No.2 sold the subject property to respondent No.1 vide sale deed dated 23.09.1999. Resultantly, since respondent No.2 failed to furnish security as directed, the trial court attached the subject property vide order dated 19.07.2000.

4. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by respondent No.1 –

Signattureh Noet Ve rifievd endee before the High Court in which the impugned order has Digitally signed by NITIN TALREJA Date: 2025.10.18

13:00:37 IST Reasobn:een passed. The High Court has set aside the order of attachment, inter alia, observing that the d octrine of lis pendens is not applicable as the money suit does not specifically concern the right in the subject property. The High Court has further observed that fraudulent transfer in terms of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would necessarily require multiple creditors, which involves the case in hand. Further, the attachment was also held to be invalid under Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 .

5. The aggrieved appellant approached this Court, whereafter on 02.02.2018, notice was issued and operation of the impugned order of the High Court was stayed.

6. It is not in dispute that the above-stated stay is still in operation. It seems that the proceedings are still pending either before the trial court or some other forum. Counsel for the parties, however, are not sure about such pendency. In such circumstances, when the interim stay granted by this Court has been operative for over 7 years, we deem it appropriate to allow this appeal in the following terms:

(i) The impugned order dated 29.06.2017 of the High Court is set aside.

(ii) The attachment order passed by the trial court on 19.07.2000 is restored.

(iii) This would, however, be without prejudice to the right of the vendee, namely, respondent No.1.

(iv) The forum, namely, the trial court or the first appellate court, wherever the proceedings are pending, is requested to decide the matter expeditiously and preferably within six months, for which counsel for the parties shall extend full cooperation.

(v) In case there are circumstances in which modification of this order is required, liberty is granted to the parties to move an appropriate application.

7. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

..........................J.

(SURYA KANT)

..........................J.

(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)

NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 16, 2025.

ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.2 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4445/2018 [Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 29-06-2017 in CMSA (MD) No. 6/2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai]

TULASIKANNU Petitioner(s)

VERSUS AMMAVASAI & ANR. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 5396/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 16-10-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI For Petitioner(s) : Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv.

Mr. C.adhikesavan, Adv.

Mr. Harikrishnan P.v, Adv.

Mr. C.kavin Ananth, Adv.

Mr. Dhass Prathap Singh V.m,