HAR NARAIN (DEAD) BY LRS. versus MAM CHAND (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 974 · Decided: 08-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 974 
HAR NARAIN (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
MAM CHAND (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 995-996 of 2003) 
OCTOBER 8, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.) 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s.19(b) - Protection under -
Scope - Landed property - Respondent no.1-owner entered 
C into agreement for sale with appellant - But subsequently 
executed sale deed in respect of same property in favour of 
respondent nos. 2 to 6 - Appellant filed suit for specific 
performance against respondent no. 1 - Sale deed executed 
in favour of respondent nos.2 to 6 registered subsequent to 
D institution of the suit - Trial Court dismissed the suit holding 
that the sale deed executed in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 
6 was not subject to the doctrine of /is pendens, and, that 
respondent nos. 2 to 6 were bonafide purchasers for 
consideration without notice - Order upheld by first appellate 
E court and High Court - Justification of - Held: Not justified -
The sale executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of 
respondent Nos. 2 to 6 could not be termed as a complete 
sale until the document got registered - In view of s.47 of the 
Registration Act, the registration related back to the date of 
F execution but it does not mean that sale would be complete 
in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 prior to the date of 
registration of the sale deed - As the sale stood completed 
during the pendency of the suit, doctrine of /is pendens is 
applicable - Moreover, appellant had been in possession of 
G the suit land since long and this fact had also been mentioned 
by respondent No. 1 in the sale deed in favour of respondent 
Nos. 2 to 6, therefore, the question of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 
being bonafide purchasers for value and having paid money 
in good faith without notice does not arise - Respondents 
H 
974 
HAR NARAIN (DEAD) BY LRS. v. MAM CHAND 
975 
(DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
No.2 to 6, therefore, cannot take the benefit of the provisions A 
of s.19(b) of the Specific Relief Act- Transfer of Property Act, 
1882 - s.54 - Registration Act, 1908 - s.47 - Doctrines -
Doctrine of tis pendens. 
Maxim - 'pendente lite, nihil innovetur' - Applicability of B 
Respondent no.1-owner entered into an agreement 
for sale with the appellant in respect of certain landed 
property. However, subsequently, on 2.8.1971, 
respondent No.1 executed a sale deed in respect of the · 
same property in favour of respondent nos.2 to 6. 
C 
Aggrieved, the appellant filed a suit for specific 
performance against respondent no.1. The sale deed 
executed in favour of respondents 2 to 6 was registered 
subsequent to the institution of the suit (on 3-9-1971 ). The D 
trial court dismissed the suit holding that the sale deed 
would be deemed to have come into force on 2-8-1971, 
as the registration thereof dated 3-9-1971 would relate 
back to the date of execution (by virtue of the application 
of the provisions of Section 47 of the Registration Act, E 
1908) which was prior to institution of the suit for specific 
performance and thus, the doctrine of /is pendens would 
not apply; and that respondents 2 to 6 were bona fide 
purchasers for consideration without notice and, 
therefore, the sale deed in their favour was to be 
protected. The order was upheld by the first appellate 
F 
court as well as the High Court. 
The questions for consideration in the instant appeal 
were: 1) whether the sale deed executed by respondent 
No.1 in favour of respondent nos.2 to 6 could be subject G 
to the doctrine of /is pendens and 2) whether respondent 
nos.2 to 6 could held to be vendees without notice of an 
agreement to sell in favour of the appellant by 
respondent no.1. 
H 
976 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1.1. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 
1882, mandatorily requires that the sale of any immovable 
property of the value of hundred rupees and upward can 
8 
be made only by a registered instrument. Section 47 of 
the Registration Act, 1908, provides that registration of 
the document shall relate back to the date of the 
execution of the document. The aforesaid two provisions 
make it crystal clear that sale deed in question requires 
registration, and even if registration had been done 
C subsequent to the filing of Suit, it related back to the date 
of execution of the sale deed, which was prior to 
institution of the Suit. However, in the instant case, in 
spite of the fact that the registr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.