Court Upholds Doctrine of Lis Pendens in Property Dispute

The court found that the decision in Original Suit No. 294 of 1993 operates as res judicata. The sale deed dated 23.11.1959 was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, and the plaintiffs could claim only the share of their vendor. The preliminary decree for partition was final and binding, determining the shares of the parties. The court held that the sale deed was valid only to the extent of the vendor's share and that the plea of adverse possession was not available. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and decree, and restoring the Trial Court's final decree.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Res judicata effect of Original Suit No. 294 of 1993.
2. Applicability of doctrine of lis pendens to the sale deed dated 23.11.1959.
3. Effect of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act on transfers pendente lite.
4. Binding nature and effect of preliminary decree for partition.
5. Necessity of filing a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 23.11.1959.
6. Perfection of title by adverse possession by Bala Mallaiah, his heirs, and purchasers.
7. Authority of a Muslim co-sharer to alienate the share of other co-sharers.
8. Right of the purchaser to claim equity in final decree proceedings.
9. Validity of the sale for legal necessity.
10. Effect of proceedings under the Tenancy Act, 1950.
11. Effect of decisions of the Supreme Court and High Court regarding final decree proceedings in Item No. 2 of Schedule 'B' property.
12. Waiver of rights by the appellants.
13. Delay or laches by the appellants.
14. Effect of the Urban Land Ceiling Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Res Judicata Effect of Original Suit No. 294 of 1993:
The court found that the decision in Original Suit No. 294 of 1993 operates as res judicata. The suit for permanent injunction was based on the sale deed dated 23.11.1959, and the court held that the sale was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. The plaintiffs could claim only the share of their vendor, not the entire property. The plea of adverse possession was also negatived, and the findings were affirmed in subsequent appeals.

2. Applicability of Doctrine of Lis Pendens:
The court held that the sale deed dated 23.11.1959 was executed during lis pendens. The suit filed in 1935 was never dismissed, and the order dated 1.12.1955 imposing costs was without jurisdiction. The sale was subject to the outcome of the pending partition suit, and the doctrine of lis pendens applied.

3. Effect of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act:
Section 52 does not render transfers pendente lite void but subservient to the rights of the parties to the litigation. The sale deed was valid only to the extent of the vendor's share (14/104th) and subject to the final decree.

4. Binding Nature and Effect of Preliminary Decree for Partition:
The preliminary decree passed in 1970, determining the shares of the parties, was final and binding. The shares were crystallized, and the purchasers were bound by the preliminary decree. The court emphasized that the preliminary decree had attained finality and could not be re-opened.

5. Necessity of Filing a Suit for Cancellation of the Sale Deed:
The court held that it was not necessary to file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 23.11.1959. The sale was subject to the doctrine of lis pendens, and the vendor had no authority to sell beyond his share. The preliminary decree determined the vendor's share, and the sale was valid only to that extent.

6. Perfection of Title by Adverse Possession:
The court found that the plea of adverse possession was not available. The sale was during lis pendens, and possession never became adverse. The High Court's finding of adverse possession was perverse and without basis.

7. Authority of a Muslim Co-sharer to Alienate the Share of Other Co-sharers:
Under Muslim law, co-sharers inherit specific shares as tenants in common. A co-sharer cannot alienate the share of other co-sharers. The sale by Hamid Ali Khan of the entire property was void beyond his share (14/104th).

8. Right of the Purchaser to Claim Equity in Final Decree Proceedings:
The court held that purchasers could work out equity in final decree proceedings but only to the extent of the vendor's share. The sale was valid only to the extent of 14/104th share, and no further equity could be claimed.

9. Validity of the Sale for Legal Necessity:
The court rejected the contention that the sale was for legal necessity. The sale deed recited that it was for the vendor's personal necessity, not for payment of land revenue or for the benefit of the entire estate.

10. Effect of Proceedings under the Tenancy Act, 1950:
The court found that the proceedings under the Tenancy Act, 1950, did not confer any additional rights on the purchasers. The claim of protected tenancy was negatived, and the sale remained subject to the pending partition suit.

11. Effect of Decisions of the Supreme Court and High Court:
The court noted that previous decisions regarding Item No. 2 of Schedule 'B' property supported the view that a co-sharer could not alienate the entire property. The decisions affirmed that the sale was subject to the preliminary decree and the rights of other co-sharers.

12. Waiver of Rights by the Appellants:
The court rejected the contention of waiver of rights by the appellants. The appellants' actions were consistent with protecting their rights under the doctrine of lis pendens, and there was no approbation and reprobation.

13. Delay or Laches by the Appellants:
The court found no delay or laches on the part of the appellants. The preliminary decree was final, and the proceedings for the final decree were initiated within the period of limitation. The delay was attributed to the respondents' multiple proceedings.

14. Effect of the Urban Land Ceiling Act:
The court declined to examine the effect of the Urban Land Ceiling Act due to the lack of relevant orders on record. The issue was left open for the State Government to examine.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment and decree were set aside, and the final decree of the Trial Court was restored. Costs of Rs. 1,00,000 were imposed, to be paid within two months.

---