KEDAR NATH LAL & ANR. versus GANESH RAM & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 204 · Decided: 05-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

204 
KEDAR NATH LAL & ANR. 
v. 
GANESH RAM & ORS. 
September 5, 1969 
(M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J. M. SHELAT AND 
C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), s, 52-Doctrine if !is pendens-
Applicabi/ity, 
Release by Cooperative Society of properfy from mortgage-Effect of. 
One R executed a mortgage of his share in two survey No&. to a Coope-
rative Society. 
On his application and in order to enable him to repay a 
sum of Rs. 500/-, the Society released. the property in 1933, but R never 
paid the amount to the Society. The Society filed an application for 'a 
mortgage award on April 5, 1934 and the Assistant Registrar made an 
award in the nature of a preliminary decree, on December 16, 1934. There-
after a final mortgage decree was passed by the Assistant Registrar-Md the 
two survey nos. 
were bwught to sale and purchased by the Society and 
possession was obtained on July 20, 1937. Meanwhile. one D obtained 
attachment before iudgment of the two survey nos., as the property of R, 
in a suit for money a.e;ainSt R, and, in execution of the money decree, 
purchased the two survey nos. on August 13, 19'34. 
In 1943, the Society 
went into liquidation anc! the liquidator sold the properties of the Society 
and the appellant bought the two surve1 nos. He filed a suit for a decla-
ration of his title and possession of the properties in the two survey nos. 
from various persons who wzre in possession of the properties under R 
and D. The High Court dismissed the suit. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (1) The motive, of the release, in 1933, of the properties by 
the Society in favour of R was the payment of Rs. 500/- by R to the 
Society, but it was not a condition Of the release. 
TherefQre, the release 
was binding on the Society. [209 D-E] 
(2) But R did not object to the inclusion of the items in the mortgage 
award. Therefore, the Society must have bona fide felt that the properties 
remained encumbered. [211 G] 
( 3) The proceedings in respect of the mortgage were pending from 
April $, 1934 to July 20, 1937. The proceedings were for obtaining a 
mortgage award equivalent to a mortgage decree and not for a money 
decree. The fact that they were attached before judgment in D's suit does 
not affect the application of the doctrine of lis pendenS. ,' Attachment is 
only effective in preventing alienation and does not creaJe title to property. 
If in fact, the property was acquired pendente lite, the acquirer is bourid 
by the decree ultimately obtained. Therefore, D's purchase on August 13. 
1934, was hit by the doctrine of /is pen<iens in s. 52 of the Transfer of 
Property Act, 1882. Since D's purchase was hit by the doctrine the pro-
perties continued .to be those of the Society and hence,_ the appellant was 
en1itled to them. [210 E, G-H; 211 A-CJ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
: 
G 
-. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
1) 
E 
F 
G 
H 
K. N. LAL V. GANESH RAM (Hidayatul/ah, C.J.) 
20 5 
Samarendra Nath Sinha & Anr. v. Krishna Kumar Nag, 
[1967] 
2 
S.C.R. 18, followed. 
Moti Lal v. Karrab-ul-Din & Ors. 24 I.A. 170 and Gouri Dutt Maharaj 
v. Sukur Mohammed and Ors. 75 I.A. 165, applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JUR!Sl)JCTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1091-
1103 of 1964. 
Appeals from tho Judgment and decree dated April 17, 1957 
of the Patna High Coun m S.econd Appeals Nos. 1447 of 1950 
etc. 
C. B. Agarwala and D. Goburdhun, for the appellant (in all 
the appeals) . 
U. P. Singh and K. C. Dua, for respondents Nos. 3 and 4 (in 
C.A. No. 1091of1964) respondent No. 3 (in C.A. No. 1092 of 
1964) respondent No. 4 (in C.A. No. 1093 of 1964), respon-
dent No. 7 (in C.A .• No. 1094 of 1964), respondent No. 3 (in 
C.A. No. 1096 of 1964) respondents Nos. 4 and 5 (in C.A. No. 
1095 of 1964) and respondent No. 4 (in C.As. Nos. 1099, 1100 
and 1101 of 1964). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, C.J. These are 13 appeals by certificate against 
the common judgment in second appeal, April 17, 1957, of the 
High Court of Patna. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. 
The appellants had filed 12 title suits for ejectment in the court 
of the Second Munsif at Buxar. Eleven suits were dismissed. It 
was held that the plaintiffs had no title to suit lands. One suit 
was compromised and decreed in terms of the compromise. Two 
other suits-one by Kedar Nath (one of the plaintiffs in the 12 
title suits) and the other by one Udholal-were filed for rent for 
1335-1337 Fasli in respect of some lands comprised in Survey 
No. 3385 of Mouza B

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