Appeal Dismissed: Lease Void, Plaintiff Rights Upheld.

The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the plaintiff's claim that the lease executed in favor of the Defendant-Appellant was void and ineffective against the plaintiff's rights. The Court found the lease to be invalid due to the application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 64 of the Civil Procedure Code, as well as the doctrine of lis pendens. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the Special Leave Petitions were also dismissed in line with the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1041 of 1968.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the lease executed in favor of the Defendant-Appellant.
2. Applicability of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
3. Applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
4. Applicability of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act.
5. Applicability of Section 64 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Lease Executed in Favor of the Defendant-Appellant:
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit claiming that a lease executed in favor of the Defendant-Appellant, M/s. Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd., in respect of Strider Vilas Theater (now known as Plaza Talkies) by its former owners, the Bhatias, is void and ineffective against the plaintiff's rights under decrees obtained in Civil Suit No. 15A of 1954 and Civil Suit No. 3B of 1952. The plaintiff sought a declaration to ensure that an auction purchaser would acquire rights free from any obligation towards the Defendant-Appellant under the void lease.

2. Applicability of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act:
The defendant-appellant argued that the plaintiff had neither a legal character nor any present right in any property for which a declaration could be granted u/s 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. However, the Court held that Section 42 merely gives statutory recognition to a well-recognized type of declaratory relief and subjects it to a limitation but does not exhaust every kind of declaratory relief or circumscribe the jurisdiction of Courts to give declarations of right in appropriate cases falling outside Section 42.

3. Applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act:
The Court found that the lease of 1956 purported to create entirely new rights pendente lite and was, therefore, struck by the doctrine of lis pendens, as explained by this Court in Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami & Ors., embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

4. Applicability of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act:
The appellant argued that a case falling within Section 65A(2)(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, confining the duration of a lease by a mortgagor to three years, displaces the provisions of Section 52. The Court, however, held that the special doctrine of lis pendens is applicable here, making the purported lease of 1956 invalid from the outset, thus not necessitating the consideration of Section 65A(2)(e).

5. Applicability of Section 64 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The Court found that the Plaza Talkie was attached in execution of the decree in suit No. 3B of 1952 on 4-5-1955 and that this attachment was in existence when the impugned lease was executed on 30-3-1956. Therefore, the lease of 1956 was struck by the provisions of Section 64 Civil Procedure Code, which constitutes an application of the doctrine of lis pendens in the specified circumstances.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the Special Leave Petitions (Civil) were also dismissed in view of the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1041 of 1968.

---