Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s. Rehab Housing Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 16 April 2006 against the original owners (respondent nos. 1 to 4) of the suit property. The agreement was signed by defendant no. 1 on behalf of all owners. During the pendency of the suit, defendant no. 5, M/s. Valuable Properties Pvt. Ltd., purchased the property via a sale deed dated 30 October 2007. The appellant sought an interim injunction restraining defendant no. 5 from alienating the property. The trial court rejected the injunction application on 25 September 2012. The appellant appealed. The High Court noted that the original defendants did not appear, and the averments in the plaint could not be displaced by the subsequent purchaser at this stage. The court applied the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, citing Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors P. Ltd. & Ors. The court found that the appellant had a prima facie case, balance of convenience was in favour of the appellant, and irreparable loss would be caused if the injunction was not granted. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and defendant no. 5 was restrained from alienating or creating third-party rights over the suit property until the disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Interim Injunction - Doctrine of Lis Pendens - Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The appellant-plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 16 April 2006. The trial court rejected the injunction application. The High Court held that the doctrine of lis pendens applies and the subsequent purchaser is bound by the decree. The plaintiff made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff, and irreparable loss would be caused if injunction was not granted. The order rejecting injunction was set aside and the subsequent purchaser was restrained from alienating the property. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the subsequent purchaser from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit for specific performance.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 25 September 2012 is set aside. The respondent no. 5 is restrained from alienating or creating third-party rights over the suit property until the disposal of the suit. Rule made absolute. Civil application disposed of.
Law Points
- Doctrine of lis pendens
- Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Prima facie case for injunction
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
