V.Raveendran Nair vs M.R.Jayasree

Sathish Ninan, J.

A decree for specific performance is under challenge by a third party to the suit.

The plaint schedule property has an extent of 34 cents. The suit is based on an agreement dated 18.11.2002 entered into between defendants 1 and 2 who are respondents 3 and 4 in the appeal, with the plaintiff for sale of the property. The suit was filed on 17.03.2004.

The contention of the appellant is that, he had purchased six cents from out of the plaint schedule property under Ext.B1 Sale Deed dated 21.05.2007 from one Sarojam. He is a bonafide purchaser for value. His vendor was not a party to the suit at the time of execution of Ext.B1 Sale Deed. He is entitled to urge his contentions in the suit, it is claimed.

I have heard the learned counsel on either side.

The agreement for sale which is the subject matter of the suit is dated 18.11.2002. As noticed, the agreement was entered into between defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff. On 28.01.2004, the first defendant settled six cents of property in favour of his son Sajeesh Kumar under Ext.B3 document. It is thereafter that the suit was filed on 17.03.2004. Sajeesh Kumar was not made a party to the suit. On 22.03.2004, Sajeesh Kumar conveyed the property in favour of Sarojam under Ext.B2 Sale Deed. Thereafter, on 25.01.2006 Sajeesh Kumar was impleaded as additional 4th defendant in the suit. Though there had been a conveyance as per Ext.B2 on 22.03.2004 in favour of Sarojam, she was not impleaded as a party along with Sajeesh Kumar. On 21.05.2007 Sarojam conveyed the property in favour of the appellant under Ext.B1 Sale Deed. Thereafter Sarojam was impleaded in the suit as additional 5th defendant as per order dated 12.02.2008 in I.A. 5025/2007. At that stage, in spite of Ext.B1 Sale Deed, the appellant herein was not impleaded in the suit.

Though the conveyances Ext.B2 dated 22.03.2004 and Ext.B1 dated 21.05.2007 were made pending the suit, the assignors under the respective documents were not parties to the suit as on the date of assignment. Therefore, the transactions are not hit by lis pendens, is the contention. Appellant also urges that, the alleged agreement for sale is not genuine.

On the facts as above, it is only deemed appropriate that appellant be given an opportunity to raise his contentions and have the same adjudicated. To enable the same the decree and judgment of the trial court are to be interfered with and the suit remanded to the trial court. The contention of both sides are left open.

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment of the trial court are set aside. The appellant herein will stand impleaded as additional defendant in the suit. He shall be afforded opportunity to file written statement. The trial court shall dispose of the suit afresh. Parties shall be afforded opportunity to adduce evidence. Parties to appear before the trial court on 09.04.2024.