CHANDER BHAN (D) THROUGH LR SHER SINGH V. MUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS., 2024 (SC) 347
Facts: On 10.11.2002, the appellant and respondent No. 3 entered into an agreement to sell 16 kanals of land for Rs. 8 lakhs, with Rs. 2.5 lakhs paid upfront and the balance due on execution of the sale deed by 10.11.2004. Before executing the sale deed, the appellant discovered that respondent No. 3 intended to alienate the property, prompting the appellant to file a suit for permanent injunction on 21.07.2003. On 28.07.2003, respondent No. 3 executed a release deed in favour of his son, respondent No. 4, who subsequently sold the property to Mukhtiar Singh and Baljeet Singh (respondents 1-2) on 16.06.2004. The appellant then filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed by the trial court. Respondents 1-2 appealed, and the appellate court's judgment was reversed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which ordered a refund of earnest money with interest but did not uphold the specific performance.
Issue: Whether the doctrine of Lis Pendens applies even if Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is not strictly applicable in a state.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of Lis Pendens, which maintains the status quo during ongoing litigation, is applicable based on principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, irrespective of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1881, not being strictly applicable. The Court clarified that the pendency of a suit commences from the date of filing and continues until a final decree is realized. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision and directing respondent No. 3 to accept the remaining sale consideration and execute the sale deed in favours of the appellant within three months.
