Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. The dispute there, as here is not one between the parties to the suit or their representatives, but one between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent both of whom claim under one of the parties to suit in O.S. No. 78 of 1966 viz., respondents 3 and 4 Therefore the application under section 47 C.P.C is not maintainable the learned counsel for the appellant made some what feeble attempt to contend that the 2nd respondent was not a representative of the judgment-debtor since the sale was not confirmed in his favour and that the question in this case was only between the decree-holder and the Judgment-debtors. In support of his submission, he relied on a decision of the madras High Court in official Receiver, Tirunelveli v. P.R. M. &Co. Wherein it was observed that the auction-purchaser's title remains unprotected until the sale is confirmed. But in that case, the dispute was between the Judgment-debtor and the decree-holder in the suit unlike here. Moreover, the confirmation of the sale was interrupted by the intervention of the petitioner. Therefore, we are unable to agree that the contest in the application is one between the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder in the suit. We accordingly hold that the application of the petitioner under S. 47, C.P.C. is not maintainable.

29. The privy council in gouri Dutt maharaj v. Sukur Mohommed, AiR 1948 PC 147 enunciated the rule that the Doctrine of Lis-pendens is applicable even to a suit which resulted in a compromise decree, provided the other requirements of S. 52 of the T.P. Act are satisfied. Section 52 of the T.P. Act or S. 2 (2) to the civil P.C. draws no distinction between a contested decree and a compromise decree. We have no hesitation to hold that a transfer pendente lite, whether the decree is on contest or result of a compromise falls within the mischief of S. 52 of the T.P. Act.