A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case concerns the doctrine of lis pendens as enshrined under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The case originated from a specific performance suit filed by the respondent, Daljit Singh, based on an agreement to sell dated August 17, 1990. While the trial court and appellate court denied specific performance, citing a bona fide purchase by Shingara Singh, the High Court reversed their decisions, holding that the sale deed was void under the doctrine of lis pendens. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s ruling, underscoring that transactions executed during litigation are inherently tainted unless court permission is obtained. The decision elaborates on the equitable principles underlying the doctrine and its overriding importance in ensuring legal certainty during pending suits.

Keywords: Doctrine of lis pendens, Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, Specific Performance, Bona Fide Purchaser, Alienation During Suit.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Shingara Singh v. Daljit Singh & Anr.

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5919 of 2023

iii) Judgment Date: October 14, 2024

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Hon’ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

vi) Author: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

vii) Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 901

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
• Specific Relief Act, 1963

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None

x) Case is Related to: Property Law, Specific Relief, Equity Jurisprudence.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case arose from a specific performance lawsuit filed by Daljit Singh based on a sale agreement dated August 17, 1990. The property in question spanned 79 Kanals and 9 Marlas, priced at ₹80,000 per acre. Daljit Singh paid ₹40,000 as earnest money and remained ready to complete the transaction. However, during the pendency of the lawsuit, Defendant No. 1 (Janraj Singh) executed a sale deed in favor of Defendant No. 2 (Shingara Singh) on January 8, 1993, without notifying the court.

Daljit Singh challenged this subsequent transaction, invoking Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court and appellate court found Shingara Singh to be a bona fide purchaser, thereby denying specific performance. However, the High Court applied the doctrine of lis pendens to render the transaction void, and the Supreme Court upheld this finding.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Agreement to Sell: Daljit Singh and Defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement on August 17, 1990, for the sale of agricultural land for ₹80,000 per acre. Earnest money of ₹40,000 was paid upfront.

2. Plaintiff’s Actions: On the agreed date of November 30, 1992, Daljit Singh appeared at the Sub-Registrar’s office with the remaining balance and requisite documents but alleged non-appearance by Defendant No. 1.

3. Filing of Suit: Daljit Singh filed a suit for specific performance on December 24, 1992. A status quo order was issued on the same day.

4. Subsequent Sale Deed: During the pendency of the suit, Defendant No. 1 sold the property to Defendant No. 2 on January 8, 1993, for ₹6,45,937.50.

5. Trial Court Ruling: The trial court found the agreement genuine but dismissed the claim for specific performance, citing the bona fide nature of Defendant No. 2’s purchase.

6. First Appellate Court: The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, denying specific performance.

7. High Court Ruling: Reversed the lower courts’ judgments, declaring the subsequent transaction void under Section 52.

8. Supreme Court: Affirmed the High Court’s judgment, emphasizing the doctrine of lis pendens.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Applicability of Doctrine of Lis Pendens:
   Whether the sale executed during the pendency of the lawsuit was void under Section 52.

2. Bona Fide Purchaser Protection:
   Whether Defendant No. 2 was entitled to protection as a bona fide purchaser without notice.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The High Court erred in overturning concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts.

2. The appellant, being a bona fide purchaser, had no notice of the pending litigation or prior agreement.

3. The sale transaction complied with legal requirements and should be upheld despite the pending suit.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Section 52 prohibits alienation during the pendency of litigation, making the sale deed void.

2. Defendant No. 2 had constructive notice, as both defendants resided in the same village.

3. The trial court’s denial of specific performance rested on perverse findings unsupported by evidence.

H) JUDGMENT

a) Ratio Decidendi:

The Supreme Court ruled that alienation of property during litigation contravenes the doctrine of lis pendens. The principles of equity embedded in Section 52 demand that subsequent purchasers cannot claim immunity from pending suits.

b) Obiter Dicta:

The absence of cross-objections or appeals by the defendants constrained the appellate court from altering findings on fraud and collusion.

c) Guidelines:

1. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies irrespective of good faith or bona fide claims.
2. A purchaser during litigation bears constructive notice of the pending suit.
3. Courts must balance equitable principles with procedural requirements to avoid conflicting decisions.

I) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Bars transfer of property rights during pending litigation.
2. Specific Relief Act, 1963: Governs the enforcement of contracts and remedies for breach.

J) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred:

1. Banarsi v. Ram Phal, [2003] 2 SCR 22
2. Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram, [2008] 7 SCC 144
3. Sanjay Verma v. Manik Roy, [2006] 13 SCC 608
4. Guruswamy Nadar v. P. Lakshmi Ammal, [2008] 5 SCC 796
5. Chander Bhan v. Mukhtiar Singh, [2024] 5 SCR 1148

Statutes Referred:

1. Transfer of Property Act, 1882
2. Specific Relief Act, 1963