Case Note & Summary
The appellant, H.Prema Devakumari, was the unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for declaration and injunction. She claimed to have purchased plot No.9 from Revathi (8th defendant) through her power of attorney Kaliappan (7th defendant) under a registered sale deed dated 31.08.1988, and her mother Soundaram purchased plot Nos.10 and 11 from A.M.Wilson (6th defendant). The suit property was part of survey No.135/1C in Maniampet Village. The plaintiff sought a declaration that she was a bonafide purchaser and that a decree obtained by one S.Jayaraj in O.S.No.34 of 1984 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore, was invalid and non-est. She also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession and from implementing the decree in execution petition E.P.No.10 of 2003. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court in A.S.No.3 of 2021 confirmed the dismissal. The plaintiff then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court noted that the sale deeds in favor of the plaintiff and her mother were executed during the pendency of O.S.No.34 of 1984, and thus the doctrine of lis pendens applied. The plaintiff failed to prove that she was a bonafide purchaser without notice. The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below were based on evidence and did not give rise to any substantial question of law. Accordingly, the second appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the first appellate court were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court, as no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The plaintiff's claim of bonafide purchase was rejected based on evidence of prior litigation and lis pendens. (Paras 1-2) B) Transfer of Property Act - Lis Pendens - Section 52 - The sale deeds in favor of the plaintiff and her mother were executed during the pendency of O.S.No.34 of 1984, and thus were subject to the doctrine of lis pendens. The decree in that suit was binding on the plaintiff. (Paras 2-3) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Bonafide Purchaser - The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving that she was a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of the prior decree. The courts below correctly held that the plaintiff's title was not valid against the decree-holder. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser of the suit property and whether the decree obtained in O.S.No.34 of 1984 is invalid and non-est in the eye of law.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 14.10.2025 in A.S.No.3 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranipet, confirming the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2020 in O.S.No.187 of 2009 on the file of Sub Court, Ranipet, are confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Doctrine of lis pendens
- Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Burden of proof on plaintiff to establish bonafide purchase
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 CPC unless substantial question of law arises
