Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court held that the agreement Ex.P1 dated May 30, 1981 was, duly executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and at the time of the execution of the agreement, she had also received Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money. It was also held by the learned trial Court that defendants No. 2 and 3 had purchased the suit property during the pendency of the civil suit and as such sales in their favour were hit by the doctrine of the lis-pendence. Accordingly it was held that the aforesaid defendants had no protection available to them.

16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the answer to the substantial questions posed in the beginning has to be given in affirmative and in favour of the plaintiff.

17. Before parting with this order, it may be relevant to notice that respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1) has chosen not to contest the present appeal. Only defendants No. 2 and 3, who are admittedly transferees lis pendence have contested the present appeal. The aforesaid defendants have no independent right to contest the agreement between the plaintiff and defendants No. 1. In fact they are bound by any decision rendered against defendant No. 1 in the present suit.