LexT.G. ASHOK KUMAR versus GOVINDAMMAL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 560 T.G. ASHOK KUMAR v. GOVINDAMMAL AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No.10325 of 2010) DECEMBER 8, 2010 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Transfer of Property Act, 1882: s. 52 - Transfer of property by a defendant pending a partition suit - Partition suit found C to be not collusive - Decree in partition suit - In terms of decree, the pendente lite transferor found to have only half share in the property and she was allotted only one fourth of the property purchased by the transferee - Suit by transferee for declaration of title and permanent injunction in regard to D transferred property- Courts below dismissed the suit - Held: Suit ought not to have been dismissed in entirety even if the sale was hit by the Doctrine of /is pendens - Transferee's title will be saved in respect of that part of the transferred property allotted to the transferor in the partition suit - Transfer in E regard to the remaining portion of the transferred property to which the transferor is found not entitled, will be invalid and the transferee will not get any right, title or interest in that portion. Transfer of Property: Suggestion to Law makers - F Absence of a mechanism for prospective purchasers to verify whether a property is subject to any pending suit or a decree or attachment cause lot of hardship, loss, anxiety and leads to unnecessary litigation - All these inconveniences, risks and misery could be avoided and the property litigations G could be reduced to a considerable extent, if there is some satisfactory anct reliable method by which a prospective purchaser can ascertain whether any suit is pending (or whether the property is subject to any decree or attachment) H 560 T.G. ASHOK KUMAR v. GOVINDAMMAL AND ANR. 561 before he decides to purchase the property - Law A Commission and the Parliament much consider such amendment or other suitable amendment to cover the existing void in title verification or due diligence procedures - Also, registration of agreements of sale should be made compulsory to reduce property litigation - Registration Act, B 1908 - Legislation. Appeal: Appeal before Supreme Court - Concurrent findings of facts by the three courts below that the partition suit ·was not collusive - Interference with - Held: Not called for - C Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. The appellant filed a suit for declaration of his right. and title and permanent injunction in regard to the suit property. The case of the appellant was that he purchased the suit property from the second respondent D under sale deed dated 11.4.1990 and he was a bona fide purchaser and was unaware of the partition suit between the second respondent and the first respondent who was the step daughter of the second respondent. On 17.3.1994, the said suit for partition was E decreed by preliminary decree whereby the two respondents were held entitled to half share each in the properties including the suit property. In the final decree proceedings, the Commissioner divided the suit property in such a manner that nearly three-fourth F portion of the suit property was allotted to the share of the first respondent and only about a one-fourth portion was allotted to the share of the second respondent. The first respondent resisted the suit contending that the appellant had purchased the suit property G during the pendency of her suit for partition; and that being a purchaser pendente lite, the sale in his favour was hit by the doctrine of /is pendens and, therefore, he could not claim any right in the suit property; and she denied that there was any collusion between her H 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A and the second respondent. The second respondent did not contest the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the sale in favour of the appellant was hit by the 8 doctrine of /is pendens. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the first appellate cot'.lrt. The High Court dismissed the second appeal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal. c Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The trial court, the first appellate court and the High Court on appreciating the evidence have held that the partition suit was not collusive and that there was a valid reason for a larger portion of the suit 0 property being allotted to the first respondent, plaintiff in the partition
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.