CHANDER BHAN (D) THROUGH LR SHER SINGH versus MUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS.

CHANDER BHAN (D) THROUGH LR SHER SINGH versus MUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS.

Because the appellant filed the suit and obtained a temporary injunction before the release deed (28.07.2003) and the subsequent sale (16.06.2004), those alienations were effected during the pendency of the suit and while the injunction was operative and are therefore covered by the doctrine of lis pendens; consequently subsequent purchasers cannot claim protection as bona fide purchasers and the release and sale deeds are without legal sanctity as against the appellant, who is entitled to specific performance (subject to payment of balance consideration).

Parties
Appellant: Chander Bhan (D) Through LR Sher Singh; Respondent No.1: Mukhitar Singh; Respondent No.2: Baljeet Singh; Respondent No.3: Respondent No.3 (vendor); Respondent No.4: Harvinder Singh (Respondent No.4)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Lis Pendens, Bona Fide Purchaser, Temporary Injunction, Specific Performance, Release Deed, Sale Deed, Section 52 TP Act, Section 41 TP Act
Transfer of Property Equity Civil Litigation Lis Pendens Bona Fide Purchaser Temporary Injunction Specific Performance Release Deed +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chander Bhan (D) Through LR Sher Singh

Appellant

Mukhitar Singh

Respondent No.1

Baljeet Singh

Respondent No.2

Respondent No.3 (vendor)

Respondent No.3

Harvinder Singh (Respondent No.4)

Respondent No.4

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent-purchasers were unaware of lis-pendens and could claim to be bona-fide purchasers entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
  2. 2 Whether the principle of lis-pendens as enshrined in Section 52 would apply in the State of Punjab
  3. 3 When the doctrine of lis-pendens takes effect

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellant filed the suit and obtained a temporary injunction before the release deed (28.07.2003) and the subsequent sale (16.06.2004), those alienations were effected during the pendency of the suit and while the injunction was operative and are therefore covered by the doctrine of lis pendens; consequently subsequent purchasers cannot claim protection as bona fide purchasers and the release and sale deeds are without legal sanctity as against the appellant, who is entitled to specific performance (subject to payment of balance consideration).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment dated 03.10.2019 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in RSA No. 2746 of 2012 set aside
  • Decree in favour of the appellant upheld