Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

issued a notice (Exh.103) to the plaintiffs, informing them that the agreement for sale stood cancelled since the plaintiffs failed to get the sale deed executed within a time-frame. The plaintiffs immediately responded to the notice and expressed their readiness and willingness to get the sale deed executed. The plaintiffs immediately filed the suit on 20/1/2001 for specific performance of agreement for sale and consequential relief. They also registered a notice of lis pendence with the office of Sub-Registrar. The defendants No.1 to 3 executed the sale deed (Exh.121) in respect of the suit land in favour of the defendants No.4 and 5. These defendants (appellant herein), therefore, came to be added as party defendants.

32. Admittedly, the appellants (subsequent purchasers) did not take search in the office of the Sub- Registrar to verify title of the vendors (defendants No.1 to 3). They did not make any enquiry as to whether there was any charge on the suit land. Had the appellants (defendants No.4 and 5) taken search, they would have come across the factum of registration of agreement for sale between the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3. No sooner the suit was filed, the plaintiffs also registered a notice of lis pendence. Admittedly, the sale deed executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiffs is post institution of the suit and even registration of notice of lis pendence. The trial Court has, therefore, rightly observed that the transaction of sale was hit by the principle of lis pendence.

Court has rightly held the sale deed to have been hit by the principle of lis pendence. The appellants could not be said to have been bonafide purchasers for value without notice of the original contract. Non-framing of issues in that regard proves to be inconsequential since the same has been addressed with sound reasons.

34. Point No.4 :- It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that, the appellants have improved the suit land by spending a lot. They have been in possession of the suit land for over ten years. The trial Court, therefore, ought not to have exercised discretion in favour of the plaintiffs.

This Court is not in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. The appellants are not bonafide purchasers. The transaction is hit by lis pendence. There is evidence to indicate the appellants to have been in the know of the earlier transaction between the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3. All are local persons. On the day the suit was filed, an application for temporary injunction was being argued by learned Advocate for the plaintiffs. There was an appearance on behalf of the defendants No.1 to 3 on caveat. Still, the sale deed came to :: 30 ::