Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 13 September 2013 in a motion taken out by the Appellant, the original Plaintiff, during the pendency of a suit for specific performance. The reliefs sought in the motion were: (i) rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; and (ii) a direction to relieve the Defendant (the First Respondent) from lis pendens. The learned Single Judge declined to accede to the prayer under Order 7 Rule 11, which part was not questioned in appeal. However, the learned Single Judge relieved the First Respondent from the operation of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on the deposit of an amount of Rs.8 lakhs in Court within six weeks. The Plaintiff appealed against this part of the order. The Appellant had instituted a suit for specific performance and sought a declaration that there was a binding and concluded contract between the parties for the assignment/sale of certain immovable property. According to the Appellant, in May 2006, a concluded contract was arrived at under which the First Respondent agreed to assign its leasehold interest under an Indenture of Lease dated 12 August 1991 to the Appellant for a consideration of Rs.3.33 crores, besides payment of transfer charges to MIDC. The Appellant paid an aggregate sum of Rs.1 crore by two cheques both dated 22 May 2006. The case of the Appellant is that on 14 August 2006, a meeting took place in the office of the First Respondent's Advocate, during which changes sought by the First Respondent were discussed. By an e-mail dated 22 August 2006, the Appellant's Advocate attached a revised draft MOU. However, by an e-mail dated 29 August 2006, the First Respondent indicated that unless the Appellant agreed to certain terms, the deal would not go through. The court considered the issue of whether the Single Judge was justified in granting relief from lis pendens. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's order, finding no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised.
Headnote
A) Transfer of Property Act - Lis Pendens - Section 52 - Relief from lis pendens - The court considered whether the defendant could be relieved from the operation of lis pendens during pendency of a suit for specific performance - The Single Judge allowed relief upon deposit of Rs.8 lakhs, which was upheld by the Division Bench - Held that the discretion exercised by the Single Judge was proper and did not warrant interference (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in relieving the First Respondent from the operation of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 upon deposit of Rs.8 lakhs.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge relieving the First Respondent from lis pendens upon deposit of Rs.8 lakhs is upheld.
Law Points
- Lis pendens
- Section 52 Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Specific performance
- Relief from lis pendens
- Deposit of amount
