Law: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)

Section: 52

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

  Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ---S. 52---Lis pendens---Suit for specific performance of contract in respect of property between vendor and vendee ---Neither party to suit could make any transfer of suit property to prejudice of other party---Rule of lis pendens, would take effect from the very moment suit was instituted and would remain operative up to the time suit came to its final end in all respects---Appeal against judgment of Trial Court, also being a continuation of suit, said rule would also remain operative till final decision of appeal. 1LR 28 Cal. 23 and Pir Abdullah Shah and 8 others v. Humayun and 5 others PLD 1957 Lah. 1054 ref. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ---0.1, R.10---Impleading of party---Petitioner, seeking to be impleaded as respondent in appeal preferred by original parties to suit against judgment of Trial Court, not being party to suit before Trial Court, held, could not be allowed to be impleaded as respondent in appeal for the first time. AIR 1925 All. 768; AIR 1929 Bom. 793 and Shangara Singh and others v. Imam Din and others AIR 1940 Lah. 314 ref. Malik Allah Yar Khan for Petitioner.   ORDER Two short questions involved herein are:-- Until when may the rule of lis pendens continue to remain operative? and. Whether a transferee acting bona fide to obtain a property involved in a pending litigation may, on that account, be out of the purview of the rule of lis pendens? 2. The admitted facts are that a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a house was brought by Ghulam Muhammad respondent No.l against the promisor Ghulam Jaffar respondent No.2. After trial, the suit was decreed on 31-7-1988 to the extent only of the earnest money of Rs.1,00,000 being required to be returned to the plaintiff who was denied the relief of specific performance. This decree of the trial Court was impugned in two appeals brought by the parties in the District Court which presumably are still pending there. However, during the interregnum of denial of the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff and the impugning of that decree in either of the appeals. Ghulam Jaffar defendant purported to exchange the suit…