LexCHANDER BHAN (D) THROUGH LR SHER SINGH versus MUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 5 S.C.R. 1148 : 2024 INSC 377 Chander Bhan (D) Through LR Sher Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2991 of 2024 03 May 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration (1) Whether respondent-purchasers were unaware of lis-pendens and could claim to be bona-fide purchasers and be entitled to protection u/s.41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; (2) Whether the principle of lis-pendens as enshrined u/s.52 would apply in the State of Punjab; and (3) When would the doctrine of lis-pendens take effect. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – ss.52 and 41 – Transaction hit by lis pendens – Agreement to sell property between Appellant and Respondent No.3-owner – Appellant paid earnest money – Later, filed suit for injunction – Injunction order in favour of Appellant – Same day, Respondent No.3 executed release deed in favour of Respondent no.4 who executed sale deed in favour of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 – Suit for specific performance by Appellant – Erroneously dismissed by High Court – Order of temporary injunction was operating when transactions qua the suit property were executed by respondents – Respondents 1-2 (subsequent purchasers) bound by lis pendens and cannot claim to be bonafide purchasers, in peculiar facts of the case – Not entitled to protection u/s.52. Held: 1. Explanation to s.52 clarifies that pendency of a suit shall be deemed to have commenced from the date on which the plaintiff presents the plaint – Further, that such pendency would extend till a final decree is passed and such decree is realised – In the present case, the release deed was executed after the suit for temporary injunction was filed by the appellant, hence, the [2024] 5 S.C.R. 1149 Chander Bhan (D) Through LR Sher Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh & Ors. release made by respondent no.3 in favour of respondent no.4 would be covered by the doctrine of lis pendens – Respondent no. 4 executed the registered sale deed in favour of respondents 1-2 during the operation of the temporary injunction order – Thus, the alienation made by respondents, cannot operate against the interests of the appellant considering he had obtained an order of temporary injunction in his favour – Subsequent purchasers will be bound by doctrine of lis pendens and cannot claim they are bonafide purchasers because they were not aware of the injunction order, looking at the peculiar facts of the present case. [Paras 19, 20, 22] 2. Release Deed executed by respondent no. 3 in favour of respondent no. 4 and the Sale Deed executed by respondent no. 4 in favour of respondents 1-2 is without any legal sanctity – Alienation made by respondents cannot operate to the disadvantage of the appellant – Respondent no.3 directed to accept the balance sale consideration from the appellant and execute the agreement to sell in favour of the appellant. [Paras 24, 25] Doctrines/ Principles – Principle of lis pendens as enshrined u/s.52 – Applicability – In the State of Punjab – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – ss.52 and 1. Held: By virtue of s.1 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the provisions of the said Act are not applicable in the States of Punjab, Delhi or Bombay; subject, of course to certain exceptions – However, even if s.52 is not applicable in its strict sense in the present case (where subject land situated in Punjab) then too the principles of lis-pendens, which are based on justice, equity and good conscience, would certainly be applicable. [Para 17] Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.52, Explanation to – Pendency of suit commences from date on which the plaintiff presents the suit. Held: Explanation to s.52 clarifies that pendency of a suit shall be deemed to have commenced from the date on which the plaintiff presents the suit i.e. the date of presentation of plaint or institution of proceedings in court of competent jurisdiction.– Further, such pendency would extend till a final decree is passed and such decree is realised. [Para 18] 1150 [2024] 5 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Shivshankara and Another v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char [2023] 6 SCR 359 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 358 – relied on. Rajendra Singh v. Santa Singh [1974] 1 SCR 381 : AIR 1973 SC 2537; Dev Raj Dogra v. Gyan Chand Jain [1981] 3 SCR 174 : (1981) 2 SCC 675; Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda v. Ramanlal Udhoji Tanna [2013] 8 SCR 215 : (2013) 10 SCC 258; Kanshi Ram v. Kesho Ram, AIR 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.