Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Per contra, Sri S.S.Yadrami, learned Senior Counsel along with learned Counsel Sri Girish Bhat appearing for the respondents submits that the appellant has purchased the property during the pendency of the suit and the same is hit by the doctrine of lis pendence. That the petitioner does not have any independent right over the said property and he is only claiming through the judgment debtor. That all aspects of the matter having been adequately considered by the trial Court and the first appellate Court and concurrent findings having been recorded against the appellant, the same is not required to be interfered with in the present second appeal. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the following judgments:

13. It is the case of the appellant that he has filed application/petition under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC stating that the averments made by the first respondent in the suit i.e., OS.No.149/2005 were baseless and there was no corroborating evidence in support of the contention that the suit was filed after a long gap of 2 years between the Sale Deed and the delay was not adequately explained. It is the further contention of the appellant that the first respondent managed to get an ex parte decree without any attempt of actual service of summons on the second respondent. That the appellant's rights in respect of the suit property which he has acquired vide Sale Deed dated 14.11.2005 are independent of all the said aspects between the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and hence, it is his assertion that his purchase would not tantamount to a lis pendence and he has acquired an independent right in the suit property.

14. It is asserted by the appellant that he has continued to be in possession of the suit property. However, it is the specific case of the second respondent that he is in possession of the suit property. The appellant has further made allegation of collusion inter se amongst the respondents. The essential ground on which the petition filed by the appellant was opposed was the fact that the appellant was lis pendence purchaser during the pendency of the suit.

25. Having regard to the fact that the registered Sale Deed 14.11.2005 under which the Appellant purchased the property was during the pendency of the suit, the said transaction would attract the principles of lis pendence and having regard to Order XXI Rules 102 of the CPC he would not be entitled to resist the execution of the decree.

26. It is further relevant to note that in order to establish his right, the appellant is required to initiate appropriate legal proceedings either to challenge the decree in OS No.149/2005 or initiate appropriate civil proceedings to seek a declaration that the decree passed in OS No.149/2005 is not binding on him. In the absence of the same, the decree in OS No.149/2005 being valid and subsisting, the same will be required to be executed.