Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27.    On the other hand, learned advocate of O.P. Nos. 3 & 4 submitted that no such direction can be given to O.P. Nos. 3 & 4 to join O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 for execution of sale-deed in favour of the complainant since O.P. Nos.3 & 4 are the bona fide purchasers and they have parted huge amount of consideration for obtaining both sale-deeds from O.P.Nos.1 & 2.

28.    The learned advocate of the complainant relied upon the observations made in the following cases.

i.        Guruswamy Nadar Vs. P Lakshmi Ammal (dead) through LRs & Ors., 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 521. (Supreme Court)           It is observed that the suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement for sale was filed on 03.05.1975 and second sale of the suit property took place on 05.05.1995 and therefore, the principle of lis pendence is attracted and the second sale cannot have the overriding effect on the first sale.

Moreover, the provisions of lis pendence are not applicable to the present case since we find that the agreements of sale produced on record are not actually the agreements of sale but the documents of security.  Moreover, this Commission has no power to give any direction to O.P. Nos.3 & 4 to join O.P.Nos. 1 & 2 in execution of sale-deed in favour of the complainant since there is no relationship of consumer and service provider in between them and since this commission has no power to declare the subsequent sale-deed obtained by O.P.Nos.3 & 4 as hit by provisions of lis pendence. On this count also we hold that the complainant is not entitled to sale-deed of both the penthouses.