Smt. Munni Devi vs Nuthu Singh and Another

N.L. Ganguly, J.—An objection u/s 47 CPC was filed in the execution proceedings. Civil suit was filed by the Plaintiff Nathu Singh against Ram Chandra, opposite party for specific performance for sale which opposite party shall execute the sale deed receiving the balance amount within one month from the data of the judgment. It was further stated that in case the judgment debtor fails to execute the sale deed, the sale deed may be executed through the Court. The judgment of the trial Court was affirmed in appeal. The decree holder-plaintiff had not deposited the balance of sale consideration within the prescribed period. The Plaintiff-decree holder moved application for extension of time which was rejected on 19.10. 1982. Against the said order of the rejection, a revision was filed by the Plaintiff which was allowed by the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court was pleased to extend the time for depositing the balance of sale consideration.

During the pendency of the civil revision, the objector Smt. Munni Devi purchased the property in question by registered sale deed on 11.4.83.

In course of execution of the decree, in pursuance of the revisional order, the Plaintiff sought to got the sale deed executed. Objections were filed u/s 47 Code of Civil Procedure. The ground taken by the objector that she had no knowledge of the decree and she is bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration.

The question considered is whether the purchase by the objector was hit by Section 52 of T.P. Act. The Court considered this aspect whether the pendency of the suit or pendency of the revision during which the property is transferred whether any right to the immovable property could be transferred or otherwise. The Court below relying the decision reported in Smt. Ram Peary and Others Vs. Gauri and Others, , arrived at a conclusion that the pendency of the civil revision amounts to pendency of the suit itself, as pendency of the revision is continuation of the proceedings in suit. As such, the Court was of the opinion and rightly held after coming to a conclusion that the sale deed obtained by the objector was hit by the provisions of Section 52 of T.P. Act.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner who submitted and repeated the arguments, advanced in the Court below that the objector had no information or notice of the pendency of the suit, purchased the property as a bona fide purchaser, as such the provision of Section 52 of T.P. Act would not be attracted.

The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that perusal of the judgment do not show that the Court below while disposing the objection u/s 47 arrived at its own conclusion that the objector-revisionist had notice or information of the pendency of the suit or the revision. The finding about the pendency of the suit or the revision is correct but for applicability of Section 52 of the T.P. Act, it would be necessary that the Court should have recorded a finding about the knowledge and information of the pendency of the suit.

The Division Bench case AIR 1978 A11.318 (supra), had already considered this argument and held that subsequent transferee even though he had obtained the transfer without notice of the original contract, cannot set up against Plaintiff-contractor any right for it would defeat the rule of lis pendens which is founded upon public policy. The Court further observed that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is not subject to Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant, I do not find any merit in this revision. It do not call for any interference u/s 115 Code of Civil Procedure

The Civil Revision is dismissed. Parties to bear costs.