Registration and lis pendens control transfer priority; purchasers with notice of possession cannot claim bona fide buyer protection.

A sale of immovable property requiring a registered instrument is not complete until registration, even if executed earlier; if registration occurs during pendency of a suit, the transfer is hit by lis pendens. The Court also held that a purchaser cannot claim bona fide purchaser protection where the deed itself reveals the property is mortgaged and in another's possession, since such possession is legally relevant notice requiring inquiry. The subsequent purchasers therefore could not defeat the prior contractual rights of the claimant, and specific performance in favour of the claimant was restored, with refund of consideration and interest ordered for the purchasers.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a sale deed executed before the filing of the suit but registered thereafter is treated as a completed sale only upon registration so as to attract the doctrine of lis pendens; (ii) whether the subsequent purchasers could claim protection as bona fide purchasers for value without notice under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Issue (i): whether a sale deed executed before the filing of the suit but registered thereafter is treated as a completed sale only upon registration so as to attract the doctrine of lis pendens.

Analysis: A sale of immovable property of the statutory value requires a registered instrument. Although registration may relate back to the date of execution, the legal fiction under the Registration Act operates only after registration and does not make the transfer complete before the instrument is actually registered. A sale cannot be said to be complete until registration is effected, and if completion occurs during the pendency of the suit, the transfer is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.

Conclusion: The sale became effective only on registration and, having been completed during the pendency of the suit, was subject to lis pendens.

Issue (ii): whether the subsequent purchasers could claim protection as bona fide purchasers for value without notice under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Analysis: The sale deed itself disclosed that the property was mortgaged and in the appellant's possession. Actual possession of immovable property is a legally relevant notice of title or interest, and a purchaser is expected to inquire into the nature of such possession and any existing equitable interest. In these circumstances, the subsequent purchasers could not establish absence of notice or good faith.

Conclusion: The subsequent purchasers were not bona fide purchasers without notice and were not entitled to protection under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Final Conclusion: The transfer in favour of the subsequent purchasers could not defeat the appellant's earlier contractual rights, and the decree for specific performance in favour of the appellant was restored with ancillary relief in favour of the subsequent purchasers for refund of consideration with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale of immovable property is not complete until registration of the instrument, and a transfer completed by registration during the pendency of a suit is subject to lis pendens; a purchaser with notice of the claimant's possession or interest cannot claim protection as a bona fide purchaser without notice.

---