Advocates:
K J JOHN AND COS. SRINIVASAN

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 6764 of 2001

PETITIONER:

Guruswamy Nadar

RESPONDENT:

P.Lakshmi Ammal(D) through LRs. & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/05/2008

BENCH:

A.K.MATHUR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6764 OF 2001

A.K. MATHUR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated

19.10.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High

Court whereby the Division Bench has dismissed the appeal

affirming the judgment and decree passed by learned Single

Judge. Hence the present appeal.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this

appeal are a suit for specific performance was filed on the

basis of an agreement for sale dated 4.7.1974 under which

the first defendant in the suit had through her husband and

power of attorney holder contracted to sell a house property

in sum of Rs.30,000/-. A sum of Rs.5,000/- was given as

advance and the remaining Rs.25,000/- was to be paid before

31.7.1974. The said amount was not paid by 31.7.1974. The

owner again sold the suit property to the appellant herein

on 5.5.1975 for a sum of Rs.45,000/- and possession in

question was handed over to the appellant herein. Therefore,

the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for enforcement of

the specific performance of contract. The trial court

dismissed the suit holding that the agreement was genuine

but a false story was put up by the defendant/owner that he

signed the agreement under the influence of liquor and it

further held that the defendant who is appellant before us

purchased the suit property for bona fide consideration.

Therefore, no decree for specific performance could be

passed in favour of the plaintiff & learned trial court

dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Single Judge

reversed the judgment and the decree passed by the trial

court and decreed the suit for specific performance.

Aggrieved against the order passed by learned Single Judge,

an appeal was preferred by the second purchaser (the

appellant herein) before Division Bench and that appeal of

the second purchaser was dismissed by the Division Bench by

its order dated 19.10.2000 and hence the present appeal on

grant of leave.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record. It will be relevant to mention here that

the second purchase by the appellant was on 5.5.1975 i.e.

two days after the filing of the suit for specific

performance on 3.5.1975. Though the applicability of Section

52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was not considered

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 5

by the trial court, however, the first appellate court i.e.

learned Single Judge while granting the decree for specific

performance found that the subsequent purchase made by the

appellant- defendant was also bona fide for value and

without notice of the agreement to sell but the said sale

was subordinate to the decree that could be made in the suit

for specific performance which was instituted prior to the

sale in favour of the second purchaser. The main argument

which was advanced before learned Single Judge was that

Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that a

decree for specific performance against a subsequent

purchaser for bona fide who has paid the money in good faith

without notice of the original contract can be enforced as

the same is binding on the vendor as well as against the

whole world. As against this, it was contended by the

respondents that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act

which lays down the principle of lis pendens that when a

suit is pending during the pendency of such suit if a sale

is made in favour of other person, then the principle of lis

pendens would be attracted. In support of this proposition a

Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Ram

Peary and others v. Gauri and others [ AIR 1978 All. 318]

as wel