B.S.CHAUHAN, P.SATHASIVAM
Har Narain (Dead) by LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Mam Chand (Dead) by LRs. – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Sale of immovable property is not considered complete until the registration of the sale deed is finalized. The registration date determines the effective date of the transfer of title (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Even if a sale deed is executed prior to the filing of a suit, its registration after the suit's initiation relates back to the date of execution, but the sale is only effective once registered. The doctrine of lis pendens applies to pending suits and prevents subsequent sales from affecting the rights of the parties involved in the litigation (!) (!) (!) (!) .
A sale deed of immovable property exceeding a certain value requires registration to be legally effective. The registration relates back to the date of execution but does not make the sale complete until the registration is done (!) (!) .
The rights of subsequent purchasers who buy in good faith without notice of prior agreements or interests are protected under specific statutory provisions, provided they are unaware of any conflicting interests and have made no inquiry to discover them. If they are aware of possession or other interests, their status as bona fide purchasers is questionable (!) (!) .
Knowledge of actual possession by a prior party, especially when such possession is in the nature of a mortgagee or tenant, can constitute notice to subsequent purchasers, thereby affecting their rights and protections under law (!) (!) .
The doctrine of lis pendens applies when a sale deed is executed during the pendency of a suit, and the sale cannot be deemed complete before registration. Therefore, subsequent purchasers who buy after the suit is filed but before registration are bound by the pending litigation (!) (!) .
The effect of registration relates back to the date of execution, but the sale's completion depends on registration. The fiction created by registration laws does not override the requirement that registration must be completed for the sale to be legally effective (!) (!) .
In cases where there is a prior agreement or interest, subsequent purchasers who have notice of such interests cannot claim protection as bona fide purchasers without notice. Their rights are subject to the ongoing litigation and prior interests (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the rights of parties during litigation are protected by the principle that "pendente lite, nihil innovetur," meaning no new rights or interests can be validly created during the pendency of a suit that would affect the existing rights (!) .
The court allows the appeal, sets aside the judgments of lower courts, and directs the respondents to execute the sale deed in favor of the appellant within a specified period, including provisions for repayment of consideration with interest and the right of redemption, ensuring justice is served (!) .
Please let me know if you need any further clarification or assistance.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. —
1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgments and orders dated 9.10.2001 and 9.9.2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No.1545 of 1979 dismissing the Regular Second Appeal, as well as the Review Application, filed by the appellant concurring with the judgments and orders of the trial Court as well as of the First Appellate Court on all issues raised in the case.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that the defendant/respondent No.1-Mam Chand (since deceased through LRs.) (hereinafter called the ‘respondent’) was the owner of land admeasuring 22 kanals situate within the Revenue estate of Village Asraka Majra, District Riwari, Haryana. The said respondent had mortgaged the entire land in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, namely, Har Narain (since deceased and now represented through his LRs.) for Rs.7,000/-. The appellant was also put in possession of the said land. The respondent No.1entered into an Agreement for Sale of 8 kanals of the said property with the appellant for Rs.7500/- and he received Rs.200/- as earnest money in cash while a sum of
S.K. Mohammad Rafiq (Dead) by LRs. v. Khalilul Rehmad
Chandrika Singh (Dead) by LRs. v. Arvind Kumar Singh (Dead) by LRs.
R.K. Mohammed Ubaidullah v. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab (Dead) by LRs.
Ram Saran Lall v. Mst. Domini Kuer
Hiralal Agrawal v. Rampadarath Singh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.