Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. In AIR 1974 Madras 89, a Division Bench of this Court in para 2 has held as follows:

“In our opinion, the sale dated 20.08.1958 and the subsequent sale dated 08.02.1960 can operate only subject to the eventual result of O.S.No.145 of 1958. These two sales were by private treaty and effected by the father after his daughter had instituted the suit for maintenance. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly states that the property in suit http://www.judis.nic.in cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with during the pendency of the suit by any suit cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with during the pendency of the suit by any party thereto or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose. The Courts have uniformly held that a voluntary sale or a sale by private treaty will be hit by Section 52 whatever the position may be with regard to sales in invitum. Though it is true that thesale made to the appellant- plaintiff would not be invalid, it cannot prevail against the decree in O.S.No.145 of 1958, and therefore, against the Court sale held in execution of that decree. Seetharamanujacharyulu V. Venkatasubbamma, 59 Mad LJ 485, appears to be on all fours with the case on hand. Once a charge is granted by a decree of Court, it takes effect from the date of the plaint and another sale subsequent to the date of the plaint will naturally be subject to lis pendens, and any conveyance during the pendency of the suit which includes execution proceedings, cannot prevail over the Court sale held in execution of the charge decree. In Seetharamanujacharyulu v. Venkatasubbamma, 59 Mad LJ 485 : (AIR 1930 Mad