Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Ultimately, according to the plaintiff the problem was resolved and property was released on 4th August, 2007.

Plaintiff thereafter realized that owner is trying to alienate the property. Such realization occurred to the plaintiff on 23rd October, 2007. Thereafter, the defendant no.1 proceeded to terminate the Development Agreement and the general power of attorney executed in favour of the plaintiff and a notice-cum-intimation letter came to be issued to the plaintiff at the instance of defendant on 3rd December, 2007. The plaintiff tendered his reply and putforth his case. He also transmitted a notice on 8 th January, 2008 which was followed by a police complaint against defendant no.1 on 25th January, 2008. Ultimately the plaintiff instituted the suit and filed an application claiming interim orders on 29th January, 2008. The plaintiff also registered the suit as contemplated by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act on 1st February, 2010. After registration of lis-pendence the defendant no.

8. It is urged that the creation of third party interest during the subsistence of the agreement and during the subsistence of litigation even after registration of lis-pendence is illegal. According to Counsel appearing for plaintiff-

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order 10 ao977-11 judgm..sxw appellant the creation of third party interest in favour of the defendant no.3 by defendant no.1 after registration of lis-pendence is not only illegal but the said transaction ought to be branded as void. The defendant no.3, therefore, cannot get any right to enter into property and develop the property during the pendency and disposal of the litigation. The trial Judge has committed a serious error in refusing to grant protection as asked for during the pendency of the suit. The learned Counsel appearing for plaintiff has also canvassed that the plaintiff is successful in pointing out that there are serious triable issues involved in the matter. The plaintiff has fair chance of success in the suit. It is also contended that plaintiff has established the prima-facie case. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and if development is permitted to be continued during the pendency of the suit, irreparable injury is likely to be caused and whatever development would take place during the continuation of litigation cannot be reasonably and properly undone in the event of success of the suit. The plaintiff as such contends that the order passed by the trial Court suffers from serious errors and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

12. Thus, it is clear that once a suit has been filed pertaining to the subject matter of the property in order to put an end to such kind of litigation, the principle of lis-pendence has been evolved so that the litigation may finally terminate without intervention of a third party. In order to discourage same subject matter of the property being subject to subsequent sale to a third party, this kind of transaction has to be checked. Otherwise, litigation will never come to an end. The effect of the principle of the lis-pendence would be that the third party shall not have entitlement of intervention in the pending suit and would be bound by the result of the suit. Sofar as the Maharashtra Amendment Act is concerned on registration of the lis it shall be presumed to be a notice to all in respect of the pending litigation and thus it would not be open for the purchaser pendant lit to contend that he is bonafide purchaser without notice.

Registration of lis-pendence with the registering Authority is notice to all including the purchaser who steps in during pendency of litigation. Thus, it This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order 16 ao977-11 judgm..sxw would not be open for the third party to come forward and say that there is no notice of litigation and that he is bonafide purchaser for value. The effect of entering into any transaction after registration of lis would be the same as provided under Section 52 of the Act. Identical issue has been dealt with in Sanjay Varma's case reported in 2006(13) SCC page 608/ AIR 2007 SCC 1332. The Supreme Court was considering an appeal against the order passed by the High Court allowing impleadment of transferees pendente lite in suit for specific performance which was pending before the trial Court. In the suit a declaration was sought that defendant no.1 had no right to execute sale deeds in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 5. Permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiff was sought. During pendency of litigation one of the defendant transfered the property to one Shyam who in turn transferred it to Manik Roy and anr. These transferees applied for impleadment before the trial Court which rejected the prayer. Third party purchasers questioned the order before the High Court which allowed the petition and directed that they be added as parties. The plaintiffs questioned order of High Court before the Supreme Court contending that the effect of Section 52 of the TP Act had been totally lost sight of. While supporting the order, respondents placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v/s. Nabi Hassan Saheb & anr. {2004(1) SCC page 191}. The Supreme Court held that the Judgment in Khatoon's case was infact against the respondents' stand claiming impleadment. In paras 10 and This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order 17 ao977-11 judgm..sxw 11, the Court quoted with approval from previous judgments in Servinder Singh v/s. Dalip Singh & ors. reported in 1996 (5) SCC 539 and Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v/s. Jai Prakash University and others, reported in 2001 (6) SCC 534 to the following effect: