Land Buyers Who Bought During Specific-Performance Suit Bound By Decree Despite No Notice: Himachal Pradesh HC

Jagannath obtained a decree for specific performance against Sarwani Devi concerning the suit land.

During execution, the objectors claimed ownership under sale deeds dated 3 June 1986 and 6 October 1987, asserting that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice and were not bound by the decree.

The Executing Court partly upheld their objections and excluded the transferred portions from execution; the First Appellate Court reversed, finding the transfers hit by lis pendens. The objectors appealed to the High Court.

The suit was instituted on 3 June 1986; the High Court found that the sale deed executed that day followed presentation of the plaint, while the 1987 deed was also executed during the suit.

Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that a transfer of property directly and specifically in question in a non-collusive suit, made during the suit’s pendency, cannot prejudice the rights of another party under the decree; pendency begins on presentation of the plaint and continues until satisfaction or discharge of the decree.

Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 protects a subsequent transferee for value who paid in good faith and without notice of the prior contract, but that protection does not extend to a transfer made after institution of the suit, when Section 52 applies.

Order XXI Rule 102 CPC excludes a pendente lite transferee from the protection of Rules 98 and 100; such a transferee is bound by the decree even if not impleaded.

The Court relied, among other authorities, on Samarendra Nath Sinha v. Krishna Kumar Nag concerning the binding effect of lis pendens and Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram concerning Rule 102 and a transferee’s inability to resist execution.

The sale deeds themselves, the evidence of the witnesses, and the decree record established their dates. For the deed dated 3 June 1986, the plaint’s presentation details and the applicable court rules showed that the plaint was filed by or before 10:15 a.m.; the deed was written, executed, and registered that day. The Court therefore held that both transfers occurred after institution of the suit and were subject to lis pendens.

Because Section 52 applied, the objectors’ alleged good faith and lack of notice could not bring them within Section 19(b)’s protection.

Their non-joinder in the original suit did not prevent enforcement of the decree against the transferred property, and Rule 102 barred their resistance as pendente lite transferees.

The Court also held that the decree could be enforced without first setting aside the sale deeds.

The appeal was dismissed, leaving the First Appellate Court’s direction to execute the decree in force.