Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8.6. The order passed by the Final Decree Court is not on merits, the Final Decree Court has misapplied itself and therefore, the said order is required to be set aside and the application in I.A.No.32 requires to be allowed.

9. Per contra, Shri Akshay Katti, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that 9.1. Admittedly the Petitioner's vendor was a purchaser during the pendency of the suit and the Petitioner has purchased from such purchaser during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, both the sales are hit by lis pendence and hence, the Petitioner cannot claim any interest in the property nor can the petitioner claim the value of improvement on the property.

14.3. By the very nature of the said provision, it is clear that improvement are to be carried out by bonafide holders not knowing that they are holding the property under a defective title.

14.4. Section 51 is equally applicable to a property which has been purchased during the pendency of a suit i.e., purchase lis pendence inasmuch as such purchase would be under a defective title.

14.5. Though a person purchasing a property pending lis would not be entitled for any equities whether he has purchased the property knowing full well of the litigation or not. In terms of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, there is an exception carved out that if a purchaser has purchased a property bonafide and has carried out any improvement in the said property, such purchaser lis pendence though cannot claim title of the property would be entitled for the improvement carried out on the property. 14.6. In the present case, the Petitioner and his brother had purchased 10 acres 12 guntas from Satish Malgan and Shivalingappa Malgan who had inturn purchased the property from defendants 2a, 2b and 2b(1). 14.7. The suit had initially been dismissed and came to be decreed in R.A.No.3/1990 whereunder defendant No.2 has been put to be entitled to 2/5th share, plaintiff is entitled to 2/5th share and defendant No.2a being entitled to 1/5th share. Thus, it is not that defendant No.2 who had sold the property to Satish Malagan and Shivalingappa Malagan did not have any title over the property. It is only that they no not have title over the entire property.