Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
C. Padmavathi dead by LR’s Radha C. VS R. Punyavathi - Current Civil Cases
"], ["2008 0 Supreme(All) 1004"].C. Padmavathi dead by LR’s Radha C. VS R. Punyavathi - Current Civil Cases
"], ["2008 0 Supreme(All) 1004"].Sagarmal VS Gujarati Beedi Co. - Current Civil Cases
"].Judicial decisions emphasize that the protection under Section 19(b) is not absolute and must be balanced against the doctrine of lis pendens and the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act ["2017 0 Supreme(Kar) 1142"], ["
C. Padmavathi dead by LR’s Radha C. VS R. Punyavathi - Current Civil Cases
"].Analysis and Conclusion:
C. Padmavathi dead by LR’s Radha C. VS R. Punyavathi - Current Civil Cases
"].
In property transactions, few issues spark more confusion than buying during ongoing litigation. Imagine purchasing a property in , only to find your title challenged due to a pending suit. A common question arises: Is a during protected under Section 19(1)(b) of the ? This post dives deep into the legal nuances, backed by statutes and precedents, to clarify this critical point for buyers, sellers, and litigators.
Generally, the law balances equity for innocent buyers with public policy against undermining court proceedings. We'll explore why protection under Section 19(1)(b) typically does not extend to (during litigation) purchases.
A during is not protected under Section 19(1)(b) of the . This section shields transferees for value who pay in without notice of the original contract. However, (TP Act), overrides this by making transfers subject to the litigation's outcome, regardless of notice or bona fides.
2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 4130 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 101
This principle stems from equity and public policy: litigation must not be frustrated by transfers. As held, The protection under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act is not available to a purchaser by virtue of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 4130
This provision allows against subsequent transferees, except those who prove they are bona fide purchasers for value without notice. The onus is on the purchaser to demonstrate via a ',' including documents and witness evidence. 1998 4 Supreme 440 2010 0 Supreme(MP) 135 2015 0 Supreme(Kar) 232
For instance, courts require proof of inquiry (e.g., checking possession or records) and absence of notice. Possession by another may trigger under . 2010 0 Supreme(MP) 135 2010 0 Supreme(MP) 917
Section 52 prohibits parties to a suit from transferring the disputed property , binding such transfers to the suit's result. Crucially, It is immaterial whether the alienee had, or had not, notice of the pending proceeding and the Principle of is, not to be confounded with the aspect of or bonafides. 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 101
Unlike Section 19(1)(b), ignores notice or —it's absolute for transfers by . Neither the fact that the transferee had no notice nor the fact that the transferee acted bonafide... are relevant for applying Section 52. 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 101
buyers lack to claim Section 19(1)(b) protection, as Section 52 prevails.
2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 4130
Courts consistently affirm Section 52's primacy. In 1998 4 Supreme 440, protection was granted to defendant 2 as a pre- without notice, based on evidence. However, later chain transfers (defendant 2 to 3, 3 to 4) were and unprotected, highlighting the distinction: defendant No. 2 was a for value without notice of suit agreement (and is protected u/s. 19(1)(b) of the ). 1998 4 Supreme 440
Directly on point, purchasers cannot invoke Section 19(1)(b).
Relatedly, in 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1115, it was noted: the so called submission made regarding the applicants being bonafide purchasers has no effect in the present case as the bonafide purchaser is protected under the provisions of (‘the Act, ’) and not a purchaser during the pendency of the suit under Section 52 of the T.P. Similar emphasis in
Gordhan VS Prasanna Chand Burad
: purchasers are bound by decrees, irrespective of bonafides.Gordhan VS Prasanna Chand Burad
Other cases reinforce the general burden under Section 19(1)(b). For example, 2005 0 Supreme(Mad) 380 stresses: The burden of proof on the purchaser to establish bonafide purchase for value without notice, as per Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act. In 2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 456, defense under Section 19(b) failed due to knowledge of the prior agreement: despite knowing this fact when he purchased same, defence of Section 19 (b) of Act of could not be availed by him. 2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 456
Even in non- scenarios, like
, protection requires no evidence of notice: there is no evidence to show that the second defendant had notice of the agreement Ex.A1 and that he was not a bonafide purchaser.
While the rule is strict, nuances exist:
Gordhan VS Prasanna Chand Burad
No cited case supports protection for bona fide purchasers; all affirm Section 52. Cases like 2021 0 Supreme(AP) 266 discuss bona fides in non-litigation contexts, and 2020 0 Supreme(P&H) 938 highlights general claims without pendency. 2021 0 Supreme(AP) 266 2020 0 Supreme(P&H) 938
For plaintiffs in suits:- Highlight pendency to invoke Section 52 against buyers.- Seek interim injunctions to deter transfers.
For potential buyers:- Verify no suits via records, encumbrance certificates, or public notices.- Avoid dealings with litigating parties.- Pre-suit, conduct thorough inquiries into possession and agreements.
Courts apply a broad evidentiary test pre-pendency but disregard bona fides during .
This analysis provides general insights based on precedents. Property laws vary by facts and jurisdiction—consult a qualified lawyer for advice tailored to your situation. Stay vigilant in transactions to avoid pitfalls.
References (abridged for brevity):1. 1998 4 Supreme 440, 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 101,
, 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 4130, 2010 0 Supreme(MP) 135, 2010 0 Supreme(MP) 917, 2015 0 Supreme(Kar) 232, 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1115,
Gordhan VS Prasanna Chand Burad
, 2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 456,, 2005 0 Supreme(Mad) 380, 2021 0 Supreme(AP) 266, 2020 0 Supreme(P&H) 938 #LisPendens #SpecificPerformance #PropertyLaw
but the principle of lis pendens will certainly be applicable to the present case notwithstanding the fact that under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act his right could be protected”. ... Now it is a settled legal possession that in a situation where a conflict arises in invoking Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 52 of T....
pendens will certainly be applicable to the present case notwithstanding the fact that under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act his right could be protected”. ... Now it is a settled legal possession that in a situation where a conflict arises in invoking Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, ....
In other words, the contention is that Section 19 (1) of the Specific Relief Act, does not over ride Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. ... 1.1. There may be innocent purchasers who purchase the property bonafide without notice of the earlier agreement/transaction. ... Manjini Gounder and another) ... "Specific Relief Act, ....
In other words, the contention is that Section 19 (1) of the Specific Relief Act, does not override Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. ... 1.1. ... ... “Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 19 and 20 - Plaintiff sought specific performance of agreeme....
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - Section 19(1)(b): [B. ... 19 of the Specific Relief Act.” ... Under Section 19(1)(b) of the Act, the person claims to be the bonafide purchaser has to prove his case that he has purchased the property without canceling the agreement of sale in good faith and without notice of the original contract. ... The case pleaded by the second d....
19(b) of the Specific Relief Act? ... The said sale deed marked as Ex.B1, therefore, cannot be said to be hit by Section 19(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’), as there is no evidence to show that the second defendant had notice of the agreement Ex.A1 and that he was not a bonafide purchaser. ... Learned counsel has ma....
Thus the Full Bench clearly held that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is not subject to Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act. ... Nek Ram Singh and others, 2002 (1) AWC, 218 : (2002 All LJ 1), it was held that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act has primacy over Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief #HL_ST....
C.Arumughaperumal Pillai and another), it was held as follows: ... "Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 19-Bonafide purchaser-Person who purchases property when there exists an agreement whereby vendor has agreed to sell same property to another person has to prove that he is bonafide ... Hajee C.Abdul Wahab), it was held as follows: ... "Specific Relief Act, 1963#HL_END....
was not a bonafide purchaser for value without notice, and taking the view that Section 23 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 did not apply at all and there being no reason to not exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiff, the Suit was decreed by directing defendant ... A purchase may be bonafide or not bonafide. In a sale, which is not a bonafide, words “bonafide sale”, is used in the context....
It failed to take into consideration Section 19(1)(b)
of the Specific Relief Act. ... 16(c) of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963. ... Therefore, the
provision of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short
The defendant No.1 at para 7 of the written statement has categorically pleaded that the agreement was outcome of fraud and along with it defence is raised that the time was essence of contract. Further question falls for consideration as to whether the subsequent purchaser who had purchased the same was bona fide purchaser and would be protected under Section 19 (b) of Specific Relief Act of 1963.
Act and, therefore, the applicants have no right to maintain the appeal and the applications deserve to be dismissed. Further submissions were made that the so called submission made regarding the applicants being bonafide purchasers has no effect in the present case as the bonafide purchaser is protected under the provisions of Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (‘the Act, 1963’) and not a purchaser during the pendency of the suit under Section 52 of the T.P.
Act and, therefore, the applicants have no right to maintain the appeal and the applications deserve to be dismissed. Further submissions were made that the so called submission made regarding the applicants being bonafide purchasers has no effect in the present case as the bonafide purchaser is protected under the provisions of Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (‘the Act, 1963’) and not a purchaser during the pendency of the suit under Section 52 of the T.P.
In view of the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 title was already conveyed to the 2nd defendant under Ex.B1, dated 10.05.2006 and his name was also mutated in the revenue records accordingly. Further, the 2nd defendant has got a protection as a bona fide purchaser under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
However, defendant No.l claims that she is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice and, therefore, she is protected under Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The plaintiffs were never ready and willing to perform their part of contract. Defendant No.2, 3 and 4 have filed a joint written statement pleading that the plaintiffs had abandoned their claim under the agreement to sell as they did not had sufficient funds. The receipt of earnest money by Ashok Kumar and Harjit Singh is also not in dispute.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
