SHINGARA SINGH versus DALJIT SINGH & ANR

Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 901 · Decided: 14-10-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 901 : 2024 INSC 770
Shingara Singh 
v. 
Daljit Singh & Anr
(Civil Appeal No. 5919 of 2023)
14 October 2024
[Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court, under the impugned judgment, was 
justified in holding that the sale deed executed by defendant 
no. 1 in favour of defendant no.2/appellant was hit by doctrine 
of lis pendens and that defendant no.2/appellant is not a bona 
fide purchaser.
Headnotes†
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.52 – Applicability of doctrine 
of lis pendens – Plaintiff filed a suit on 24.12.1992 seeking 
specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.08.1990 in 
respect of the suit land – During the pendency of the suit, the 
present appellant/defendant no. 2 was impleaded on 25.01.1993 
on the basis that defendant no. 1 executed a sale deed in his 
favour on 08.01.1993 in respect of the suit land on the basis 
of alleged agreement to sell dated 19.11.1990 – Trial Court 
dismissed the suit in respect of the specific performance but 
allowed the alternative prayer for recovery of Rs. 40,000/- with 
interest – First Appellate Court maintained the Trial Court’s 
judgment – However, the High Court opined that the sale deed 
executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2/
appellant was hit by doctrine of lis pendens and that defendant 
no. 2/appellant is not a bona fide purchaser – High Court 
passed a decree of specific performance – Justified or not:
Held: In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the 
suit was filed on 24.12.1992 and the sale deed was executed 
on 08.01.1993 by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant  
no. 2/appellant during pendency of the suit – The doctrine of lis 
pendens as contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 
1882 applies to a transaction during pendency of the suit – The 
Trial Court found execution of agreement to be proved and directed 
* Author
902
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
for refund of the amount of Rs. 40,000/- by defendant no. 1 to the 
plaintiff with further finding that the agreement dated 17.08.1990 
was not a result of fraud and collusion – The defendant did not 
prefer any cross-appeal or cross-objections against the said partial 
decree and allowed the finding to become final – The plaintiff was  
non-suited only on the ground that defendant no. 2 had no notice 
of the agreement and is a bona fide purchaser – However, once 
sale agreement is proved and the subsequent sale was during 
pendency of the suit hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, the High 
Court was fully justified in setting aside the judgment and decree of 
the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and passing a decree 
for specific performance – Thus, no error was committed by the 
High Court in rendering the judgment impugned. [Paras 15, 16]
Case Law Cited
Banarsi v. Ram Phal [2003] 2 SCR 22 : (2003) 9 SCC 606; Usha 
Sinha v. Dina Ram [2008] 4 SCR 1192 : (2008) 7 SCC 144; 
Sanjay Verma v. Manik Roy [2006] Supp. 10 SCR 469 : (2006) 
13 SCC 608; Guruswamy Nadar v. P. Lakshmi Ammal [2008] 7 
SCR 435 : (2008) 5 SCC 796; Chander Bhan (D) Through LR 
Sher Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh & Ors. [2024] 5 SCR 1148 : 2024 
INSC 377 – relied on.
List of Acts
Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
List of Keywords
Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Doctrine of lis pendens; 
Specific Performance; Agreement to sell; Sale deed; Fraud and 
collusion; Cross-Appeal; Cross Objection; bona fide Purchaser; 
Pendency of Suit; Subsequent sale agreement.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5919 of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2018 of the High Court of 
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 4466 of 2010
Appearances for Parties
Harin P. Rawal, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Atrey, Sudhir Walia, Ms. Niharika 
Ahluwalia, Arpit Sharma, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Shreya Bansal, 
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
903
Shingara Singh v. Daljit Singh & Anr.
Kartikeya Kanojiya, Ms. Shrestha Narayan, Ms. Urmi H. Raval, 
Advs. for the Appellant.
Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv., P. N. Puri, Mrs. Reeta Dewan Puri, 
Ms. Smiriti Puri, Neelmani Pant, Ms. Apoorva Singh, Manish Dhingra, 
Ravinder Pratap Singh, J. S. Marahatta, Aakash Bhan, Advs. for the 
Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
1.	
The defendant No. 2 in the suit has preferred this appeal challenging 
the judgment and decree passed by the High Court allowing the 
appeal preferred by 

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