Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This Motion by defendant No. 3 seeks amongst others reliefs, a declaration that the lis pendens notice registered under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act with the Sub Registrar at Bombay, on 29th April 1999, be declared as null and void, illegal and ineffective and the same be set aside. The further prayer sought is that pending hearing and final disposal of the suit, this Court be pleased to forthwith deregister the notice of lis pendens dated 29th April, 1999. There are also some other prayers. The Motion is supported by the affidavit of Pratap C. Lodaya, partner of defendant No. 3. Defendant No, 3 is the purchaser of the property from defendant No. 1. In the affidavit it is averred as to why the reliefs as prayed for should be granted. The plaintiff has filed his reply dated 5th September, 2000. In the said affidavit it is averred that the defendant's motion is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has been replied to the averments in the affidavit in support of the Motion. It is pointed out that the 2nd defendant was a co-purchaser along with the plaintiff in the agreement entered into with defendant No. 1 for purchase of the property. Pending suit, is for specific performance of that Agreement. It is pointed out that in an earlier suit filed by the defendant No. 1 wherein both the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 were parties, consent terms were filed and the suit against the present plaintiff was withdrawn. The consent terms as filed in the Court did not disclose that the Defendant No. 3 had paid money to defendant No. 2 and to the 1st Defendant. The object and consideration of that deal, according to the plaintiff, is unlawful and opposed to public policy. There are various other averments which I need not refer to for the reasons set out hereinafter. In sum and substance the contention of the plaintiff is that the reliefs prayed for in the motion ought not to be granted and the Motion be dismissed.

4. With the above background the issue before this Court can now be considered. The issue for decision under what circumstances the Court can relief a defendant from lis pendens after it is registered and what are the terms it can impose. The purpose behind and rights flowing from registering of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is no longer res Integra. A right to so register does not depend on the strength or weakness of the case of the plaintiffs. It is a right conferred by statute on a person who has entered into an agreement to sell. The law was long settled in the case of Gouri Dull Maharaj v. Sukur Mohammed and ors. . While considering the issue the Privy Council considering the object of Section 52 observed as under:--

"On the other hand, Section 52 places a complete embargo on the transfer of immovable property, right to which is directly and specifically in question in a pending litigation........."

The Apex Court thereafter went on to observe as under:--

"Secondly, the doctrine of lis pendens applies irrespective of the strength or weakness of the case on one side or other. See Gouri Dutt Maharaj vs. Sukur Mohammed, . There is, however, one condition that the proceedings must be bonafide."

From the above it is clear that when the plaintiff files a suit for specific performance the statute confers on him a right to register the lis pendens after complying with the necessary formalities as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the State of Maharashtra as the section has been amended there has to be compliance with those provisions.