T. RAVI & ANR. versus B. CHINNA NARASIMHA & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 21-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2017] 3 S.C.R. I 
T. RAVI & ANR. 
v. 
B. CHINNA NARASIMHA & ORS. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4731-4732 of2010) 
MARCH 21, 2017 
[ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
· Res judicata - Decision in suit for injunction, if operates 
as res judicata - Matruka properties - Sui/ by owners son for 
partition of properties comprised in Schedule A, B, C - Son sold 
property lo BM by sale deed - Also sold share inherited by other 
co-heirs to BM - Preliminary decree for partition determining shares 
of the legal heirs whereby, defendant no: 1 ll'as having only 141 
I 04'1' share in matruka properties - Before passing of final decree, 
suit for injunction by purchasers on the basis of sale deed which 
was dismissed - Judgment affirmed in first appeal and also held 
that land grabbing case was dismissed which attained finality and 
barred the present suit - Held: Submission that the finding in suit 
for injunction did not operate as res judicata as it was lefl ultimately 
to raise the objections in the final decree proceedings cannot be 
accepted - There was clear inability to grant injunction - BM could 
have purchased only the share of his vendor and not the entire 
disputed property and the purchase was affected by lis pendens -
Finding with respect to purchase being made during lis pendens had 
attained finality and was not open to question in the present 
proceedings. 
Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of lis pendens - Execution of 
sale deed dated 23.11.1959 by defendant no.1 in favour of 
purchase1; if affected by doctrine of lis pendens - Held: Partition 
suit had not been dismissed at all in the eyes of law - lt is to be 
treated as pending only ~ No legal fiction can be created that the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
~·uit itself had been dismissed 011 15.12.1955 due to non-payment of G 
costs for restoration; whereas ii was not dismissed at all - High 
Court also held that the order dated 1.12.1955 dismissiizg suit for 
non-payment of cost, was without jurisdiction - Suit was pending 
and wrongly treated as dismissed - Thus, the sale deed was executed 
during lis pendens. 
I 
H 
2 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS. 
[2017]3 S.C.R. 
Trans.fer of Property Act, 1882: 
s. 52 - Trans.fer of property pending suit relating thereto -
s. 52, if renders a trans.fer pendente lile void - Held: Doctrine o.f lis 
pendens does not affect the conveyance by a party to the suit but 
only renders it subservient to the rights of other parties to the 
litiga1io11 - Thus, s. 52 will not render a transaction void - On facts. 
sale deed not void but only valid to the extent of the share o.f vendor 
of BM which has been found in the preliminmy decree and affirmed 
in the final decree. 
s. 52 - Execution of sale deed during pendency of suit -
Owners son sold his share as also share of other co-share -
Necessity of filing suit for cancellation of sale deed - Held: Not 
necessary - Provisions of s. 52 prevent multiplicity of the 
proceedings - When sale deed had been executed during the 
pendency of suit the purchaser pendente lite is bound by the outcome 
of the suit - Vendor had no authority to sell land of other co-sharers 
- He had right to alienate his own share only - As such the right, 
title and interest of BM were subject to the pending suit for partition 
in which a preliininary decree was passed. 
Decree - Preli111i11a1y decree for partition - Effect of and the 
extent of bindingness - Preliminary decree passed - Declaration o.f 
shares to the said extent of the re~pective parties-legal heirs of the 
owner - Held: Preliminary decree allained .finality - Thus, the 
determination of shares as per preliminary decree has attained 
finality, shares of the parties had been· crystallised in each and 
ei;ery property - Purchaser pendente lite is bound by the preliminmy 
decree ivith re~pect to the shares so determined and it cannot be re-
opened and whatever equity could have been claimed in the final 
decree proceedings lo the extent of vendors share has already been 
extended to the purchasers - Furthe1~ s.97 CPC stales that the matters 
concluded by preliminary decree cannot be re-agitated in an appeal 
against the final decree. 
Adverse possession: 
Plea of - Suit for partition - During pendency, execution of 
sale deed by owners son in favour of BM - 1.f BM, his heirs and 
purchasers pe1fected their right, title and interest by virtue of adverse 
possession - Held: Jn an earlier suit plea of adverse possession 
T. RAVI & ANR. v. B. CHINNA NARA

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