Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Shingara Singh VS Daljit Singh...

2024 7 Supreme 688 : Under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the doctrine of lis pendens applies to any transaction (including a sale) during the pendency of a suit relating to the property. A subsequent sale made by a party during the pendency of a suit for specific performance is voidable and cannot bind the rights of the other party under any decree that may be passed in the suit. In this case, the sale deed executed on 08.01.1993 was during the pendency of the suit filed on 24.12.1992, and thus was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. The High Court was fully justified in setting aside the lower courts'''' decrees and passing a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 17.08.1990.Checking relevance for Guruswamy Nadar VS P. Lakshmi Ammal(D) through LRs. ...

2008 3 Supreme 284 : When a suit for specific performance is filed regarding a property, any subsequent agreement to sell or sale of the same property during the pendency of the suit is subject to the principle of lis pendens. If the agreement to sell was made prior to the filing of the suit, the subsequent sale to a third party, even if made in good faith and without notice, cannot override the earlier agreement. The court held that the principle of lis pendens applies where a suit is filed before a subsequent sale, and the second sale is subordinate to the decree that may be passed in the pending suit. The doctrine ensures that litigation can be concluded without being defeated by subsequent alienations, preserving the finality of judicial decisions.Checking relevance for Thomson Press (India) Ltd. VS Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd. ...

2013 0 Supreme(SC) 185 : Under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, during the pendency of a suit relating to immovable property in which rights are directly and specifically in question, any transfer or dealing with the property by a party to the suit is subservient to the rights of other parties under any decree that may be made. The doctrine of lis pendens binds transferees pendente lite, even if they are not parties to the suit, provided they do not qualify as bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice of the original contract. In such cases, a sale of immovable property during the pendency of a suit is not immune from specific performance of an earlier agreement to sell unless the transferee acts in good faith, for valuable consideration, and without notice of the prior agreement. Thus, an agreement to sell during the pendency of a suit remains enforceable against a transferee who acquired title under such circumstances.Checking relevance for Amro Devi VS Julfi Ram (Deceased) Through Lrs. ...

2024 5 Supreme 531 : An agreement to sell during the pendency of a suit is not valid if it is collusive or dishonest, particularly when one of the parties (such as a plaintiff) has executed a sale deed during the pendency of the appeal, knowing the litigation is ongoing. In such cases, the doctrine of lis pendens or the restriction under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 may not apply, and any such agreement cannot be used to confer ownership or override the court''''s determination. The court emphasized that mere statements by parties before the court about settling the dispute do not constitute a valid compromise unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties, as required under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.Checking relevance for Celir LLP VS Sumati Prasad Bafna...

2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1187 : Under the doctrine of lis pendens, as codified in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA), during the pendency of a suit or proceeding in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order that may be made. The doctrine applies when: (i) there is a pending suit; (ii) the suit is in a competent court; (iii) the suit is not collusive; (iv) the right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question; (v) the property is transferred by a party to the litigation; and (vi) the alienation affects the rights of another party. The only exception is transfer under the authority of the court and on terms imposed by it. A transfer made during the pendency of a suit, even without notice to the other party, binds the transferee to the outcome of the litigation. This principle prevents parties from removing the subject matter from the court’s jurisdiction and rendering the proceedings infructuous.

• Agreement to Sell - Validity and Enforceability Several cases emphasize that an agreement to sell is primarily a contract creating enforceable rights rather than immediate transfer of ownership. Its validity depends on proper execution, absence of fraud, and clear terms. For instance, the court in ["

  Ghulam Mohammad Matoo (since dead) (substituted by his LRs) VS Ghulam Rasool Sofi - Current Civil Cases

  "] and ["2023 0 Supreme(J&K) 575"] declared agreements to sell dated 19.10.1977 as null and void, citing that they were not proved sufficiently to be legal and enforceable, leading to the restoration of possession to the plaintiff. Similarly, ["2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 127"] highlighted that an agreement to sell does not by itself transfer ownership but creates a right to specific performance, provided it is proved to be genuine and properly executed.Analysis and Conclusion: An agreement to sell during the pendency of a suit can be challenged on grounds of forgery, fraud, or improper execution. Courts scrutinize the circumstances surrounding its execution, the presence of suspicious circumstances, and whether the agreement was made in good faith. When proved valid, it can form the basis for a suit for specific performance, but if invalid or fraudulent, courts declare it null and void, restoring possession to the original owner ["

  Ghulam Mohammad Matoo (since dead) (substituted by his LRs) VS Ghulam Rasool Sofi - Current Civil Cases

  "], ["2023 0 Supreme(J&K) 575"], ["2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 127"].

• Suspicious Circumstances and Forgery Many judgments point out that agreements to sell surrounded by suspicious circumstances are liable to be declared invalid. For example, ["2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 563"] noted that the agreement dated 27.02.2013 was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, with the deed writer admitting no entry regarding its scribing, casting doubt on its authenticity. Similarly, ["2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 168"] found the agreement to sell to be a result of fraud, forged and fabricated by PW1, and the deed lacked signatures of the scribe or stamp vendor.Analysis and Conclusion: Courts are cautious of agreements executed under suspicious circumstances, especially when there is no proper documentation or signatures. Agreements found to be forged or fabricated are declared invalid, and possession is not transferred based on such documents ["2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 563"], ["2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 168"].

• Timing of Filing and Limitation Several cases discuss the importance of timely filing of suits for specific performance. For instance, ["2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 140"] noted that the suit filed after a long delay (years after the agreement) and transfer of land might be barred by limitation, affecting enforceability. Conversely, courts have also held that suits can be filed before the execution of sale deeds if the other party refuses to honor the agreement ["2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2143"].Analysis and Conclusion: The timing of suit filing is critical; delays can render claims invalid due to limitation periods, but suits for specific performance can sometimes be filed before the sale deed if the other party refuses to perform ["2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 140"], ["2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2143"].

• Ownership and Title Issues Several judgments clarify that the validity of an agreement to sell does not depend on the title or ownership but on proper execution. For example, ["2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1275"] emphasized that issues of inheritance or ownership are beyond the scope of specific performance, which hinges on the existence of a valid agreement. Conversely, courts also scrutinize whether the vendor had marketable title; if not, the agreement may be invalid ["2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1599"].Analysis and Conclusion: While an agreement to sell can be valid without full ownership, courts require that the vendor has a valid and marketable title at the time of agreement. Absence of such title can invalidate the agreement and prevent enforcement ["2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1275"], ["2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1599"].

• Possession and Delivery Courts often examine whether possession was handed over at the time of agreement or sale. In ["2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 127"], possession was considered a key factor; lack of possession transfer can weaken the case for specific performance. Conversely, in ["2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 127"], possession was established, supporting the claim.Analysis and Conclusion: Transfer of possession at the time of agreement or sale strengthens the case for enforcement, but absence of possession does not necessarily invalidate the agreement if other conditions are met and the agreement is genuine ["2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 127"].

• Collusion and Bad Faith Some judgments reveal that suits filed in collusion or with bad faith intentions are scrutinized carefully. For example, ["2024 0 Supreme(Del) 55"] suggested that the suit was filed in collusion to defraud the defendant, and the agreement was only a precursor to a second agreement, raising doubts about its genuineness.Analysis and Conclusion: Courts are wary of suits motivated by collusion or bad faith, especially when agreements are suspicious or inconsistent, and may dismiss such claims to prevent abuse of process ["2024 0 Supreme(Del) 55"].

References:- ["

Ghulam Mohammad Matoo (since dead) (substituted by his LRs) VS Ghulam Rasool Sofi - Current Civil Cases