LexGURUSWAMY NADAR versus P. LAKSHMI AMMAL (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 7 S.C.R 435 GURUSWAMY NADAR A v. P. LAKSHMI AMMAL (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. (Civil Appeal no. 6764 of 2001) MAY 1, 2008 B ""' [A.K. MATHUR AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s. 52 - Principle of lis pendens - Applicability of - Pendency of suit for specific performance- Subsequent sale of the same property by owner c to second purchaser - Held: As suit was filed before second sale of the property, principle of I is pendens would be attracted even though the subsequent purchaser purchased the same in good faith and his rights were protected u/s. 19(b) - Second sale cannot have overriding effect on first sale - More so, it is D apparent that the plaintiff while he filed suit for specific ....... performance was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract- Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s. 19(b). The first defendant-owner entered into an agreement for sale of property with the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid the E earnest money, however, did not pay the balance amount within the stipulated period. The plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of contract. Two days later, the first defendant again sold the property to the appellant for a higher sum and handed over the possession to the F ;;.. appellant. The trial court dismissed the suit. The Single • Judge of High Court decreed the suit for specific performance. It found that the subsequent purchase made by the appellant was for bona fide value and without notice of agreement to sell. Aggrieved, second purchaser- G appellant filed appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the same. Hence the present appeal. ·u The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was that what is the effect of the lis pendens on 435 H 436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R. A the subsequent sale of the same property by the owner ,.._, to the second purchaser. Dismissing the appeal, the court HELD: 1.1 Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 B clearly states that subsequent sale can be enforced for good and sufficient reason but in the instant case, there is no difficulty because the suit was filed on 3.5.1975 for .;,. specific performance of the agreement and the second sale took place on 5.5.1975. Had that not been the position c then the effect of section 19 read with section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act would have been evaluated. But in the instant case, it is more than apparent that the suit was filed before the second sale of the property. Therefore, the principle of lis pendens would govern the instant case and the second sale cannot have the D overriding effect on the first sale. The principle of lis pendens is still settled principle of law. [Para 3] [439-F, G; ,... 440-A, B] 1.2 N~rmally, as a public policy once a suit has been E filed pertaining to any subject matter of the property, in order to put an end to such kind of litigation, the principle of lis pendens has been evolved so that the litigation may finally terminate without intervention of a third party. This is because of public policy otherwise no litigation will come to an end. Therefore, in order to discourage that F same subject matter of property being subjected to subsequent sale to a third person, this kind of transaction _., is to be checked. Otherwise, litigation will never come to an end. [Para 3] [441-D, E, F] G Smt. Ram Peary and others v. Gauri and others AIR 1978 All. 318 - approved. 2.1 In the instant case, it is apparent that the appellant, who is a subsequent purchaser of the same property, -..r purchased the property in good faith but the principle of H lis pendens will certainly be applicable to the instant case GURUSWAMY NADAR v. P. LAKSHMI AMMAL (D) 437 THROUGH LRS. & ORS. ,-~ notwithstanding the fact that under section 19(b) of the A Specific Relief Act his rights could be protected. [Para 4] [442-D, E] R.K. Mohammed Ubaidullah & Ors. v. Hajee C. Abdul • Wahad (D) by Lrs. & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1658 - referred to . B ~ 2.2 The second purchaser was a defendant in the suit and the plea that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract was also considered by the Single Judge of High Court. It found that there was sufficient allegation made in the plaint that the plaintiff was c ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Therefore, from this finding it is more than apparent that the plaintif
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.