Lis pendens in specific performance suits prevents later purchasers from defeating the plaintiff's prior contractual claim.

A transfer of suit property made after institution of a specific performance action is governed by lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, so a subsequent purchaser cannot defeat the prior contractual claim on the ground of bona fide purchase without notice. The text also states that the plaintiff had adequately pleaded and proved readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the defendant's objection under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act did not succeed. On those findings, the decree for specific performance was sustained and the later sale remained subject to the pending litigation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a subsequent purchase of the suit property made after institution of the suit for specific performance was governed by the doctrine of lis pendens and could override the prior contractual claim; (ii) Whether the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded and proved readiness and willingness to perform the contract so as to sustain a decree for specific performance.

Issue (i): Whether a subsequent purchase of the suit property made after institution of the suit for specific performance was governed by the doctrine of lis pendens and could override the prior contractual claim.

Analysis: The suit for specific performance had already been instituted before the second sale took place. In that situation, the transfer during the pendency of litigation attracted the settled principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The subsequent purchaser's plea of bona fide purchase without notice could not displace the legal effect of a pending suit. Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 did not alter that position on the facts found.

Conclusion: The subsequent sale was subject to the pending suit and could not prevail over the plaintiff's claim.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded and proved readiness and willingness to perform the contract so as to sustain a decree for specific performance.

Analysis: The pleadings and findings recorded below showed a clear averment that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement, and the written statement did not contain a specific denial sufficient to displace that case. The objection based on Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 therefore did not succeed on the record before the Court.

Conclusion: The plaintiff had adequately established readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

Final Conclusion: The decree for specific performance was sustained and the appeal failed because the subsequent purchaser took subject to the pending litigation and the plaintiff's contractual readiness was established.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer of property made after institution of a suit operates subject to the result of that suit under the doctrine of lis pendens, and a subsequent purchaser cannot defeat a decree for specific performance on the footing of bona fide purchase where the plaintiff has established readiness and willingness to perform.

---