Charan Singh vs Hazara Singh and Others

Alok Singh, J.—Petitioner herein is assailing the order dated 5.12.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sultanpur

Lodhi, Kapurthala, whereby application moved by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, was dismissed.

Brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff - petitioner herein filed suit for specific performance against the defendants -respondents on

the basis of an agreement to sell dated 11.6.2007. During the pendency of the suit, admittedly, defendant No. 1 has executed sale deeds in favour

of Kullwant Kaur, Balwinder Kaur and Paramjit Kaur on 16.2.2009. Plaintiff thereafter, moved an application before the trial Court seeking

impleadment of the subsequent purchasers from defendant No. 1 and for incorporating pleadings regarding the sale deed executed by defendant

No. 1 dated 16.2.2009 in favour of the subsequent purchasers.

Learned Counsel for the respondents stated that initially subsequent purchasers had filed suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement

to sell dated 21.12.2006 against the defendant and during the pendency of that case, defendant has executed sale deeds in favour of the

subsequent purchasers on 16.2.2009 and thereafter, suit filed by the subsequent purchasers for specific performance was withdrawn.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Undisputedly, sale deeds were executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the third-party sought to be impeded during the pendency of the

present suit on 16.2.2009. In the opinion of this Court, any alienation during the pendency of the suit is hit by the principle of lis pendens. In the

opinion of this Court, it is settled position of law that if any alienation is made during the pendency of the suit, then the subsequent purchasers

thereof cannot take the plea of bonafide purchasers. It is also the settled position of law that despite of sale made by the defendant, subsequent

purchasers shall step into the shoes of the defendant. They cannot take any independent plea from the plea taken by the original defendant -

vendor.

Even if subsequent purchasers are not impleaded, they will be bound by the order passed in the suit for specific performance. Moreover, suit for

specific performance filed by subsequent purchasers against the defendant was never decided on merit. The Court has never directed the

defendant to execute sale deed pursuant to alleged agreement dated 21.12.2006. Alleged agreement dated 21.12.2006 was never proved before

the Court. If, during the pendency of present suit, any sale deed is executed by the defendant, that is hit by the principle of lis pendens. Subsequent

purchasers shall be barred by the decree passed in the present suit. Any private arrangement between the defendant and subsequent purchasers

and withdrawal of previous suit between the defendant and his purchasers shall not affect merit of the present case. If the subsequent purchasers

intend to come to the Court, they can do so by moving an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, seeking permission of the Court for

prosecution of defence. If the subsequent purchasers do not opt to move an application under order 22 Rule 10 CPC, they have to blame

themselves.

In view of the above observations, petition is dismissed.