IR THE HIGH SOUR? OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2"'9Ay OF SEPTEMBER, 2030 ' " BEFORE: Tfifi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.s. PAcH3g§sRmff.' WRIT ?ETITION No.12831 0F32OG2ufGMwCP¢j BETWEEN: Puttaswamappa, V~_ S/o. of late Puttappa,v Since deceased by his LeRe: a) Byramma, q '}u 'C iL"""xVCV_mf W/0. 2ate"Butteswam§ppa,".fl Aged 65_ye?§s," '"* * ' b) P ,Mara@p%fl _ ,u _ S/0} late Putpaswamappa, Agedvabaut~43 year$}e; C) Venkatemmé,. p}d.;late"Ppttasfiamappa, ~$ge@_é1 yeaf$,.M ..... é)rv"iuniShame Gowda, '.'CS/oxf1ate»Puttaswamappa, e Aged 38 years, 'e) Amjigappa, "A S/ofi"Eate Puttaswamappa, A'w§ged 36 years, = -efYe' Manjunath, 1 3/0. late Puttaswamappa, Aged 33 years, "g; fiarayanagwamy, Sfo. late Puttaswamappa, Aged 31 years, h) [KY a) b) P. Mahendra, S/o. late Puttaswamappa, Aged about 22 years, All are resident of Mahadeva Kodigehalli, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. 2rT:2ICNER}S Sri. T. Narayanaswamy, Adfg]1_l: Chinnappa, ,*_g -. «u V-r S/0. late Chikka*Akkalappa,Wg@ l Aged 72 years, A. "'1' - "A Since degeased Akka1app5,,' _ Aged 42 years, ' V t a , S/Q,wofllatégChrnnappa;»wV R/ at $YNagendahalli, Thubagere'Hdbli,","" DodéaballapfirarTalfik¢" Jayamma, _; g ' Q/C- late Qhinnappa fWJQ,.Famachandra, 'Aqed'45zyears, 'l*Resifiing"at Nagenahalli, ,s;s}.Gatt;;P.o_ uavlDaddaballapura Taluk. _c) Shafithamma, D/0. late Chlnnappa, [W/ozgfianumappa, ~n lAged 40 years, ",$0ndet1 Village & P 0., Madhugiri'Taluk, Tumkur District. Sujatha, D/0. late Chlnnappa, W/o. Thlppanna, Aged 30 years, Masuru badi Village, Tondeti P.O., Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District. 2. Jayakantha Jayaram, Dfo. Shamanna, figed 50 years, ¢"s-_ R/0. 62/A, New Staff Quartgrs,M' Indian Institute of Sciencé, I Yesvanthapura, ' $angalore*56O 022. 3. J. Lakshmi, N W/o. T.C. Kodandaram,.d Aged 45 years, ',f ' R/0. Ceddiapalya, Thubagere HQbli,A-m,Iz Baddaballapura Talukf; Bangalors Rfiral District}, t"=w' 4. fl. Sampatfiknmar;,_Vi ' 3 S/Q,m1ate_D}m,aHanu$anthaiah, Aged 38 years, 4', R/6-18/l,fZEIAMain,",' Palace=Guttaha1Ii_"' Banga1q:e--5€o"oo3,*. ... RESPONDENT/S [By $ri..M.Sf"Bfirusnothama Rao, Adv. for R--2, dfilgaficg held sufficient. Rml(d), 3 & 4 are '«VWserVéd,}a 'k:k~k AgThis~Writ Petition is filed 3/Article 226 of ,_ rthe Cbnstitution of India praying to quash the order 'r%_dt. 03 08.2007 passed on I.A. XVIII in O.S. 'E91445/1996 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.}, 'Doddaballapura vide Annexureufi. This Writ Petition naming on for Preliminary :*Hnaring in "B" Group, this day the Court made the 'Qfollowing: ORDER
The petitioner herein instituted suit in_C5S.
§b_Q@5/1996 seeking specific performance of eontraeta
at Sale dated 20.12.1993 executed meg, ehefl idpi
respondent i.e., 1″ defendant »he£orei’the__Courfi
below.
2. During the pendenef of the’suit,}the 1″
defendant sold the Vpropertyeeunderk the registered
Sale Deed dated o4.06,;993 ed the 2% defendant. An
application was filedflunder the prefiisions of Order
6 Rule ,17-pCPC.*to_ aeendfl”thed plaint and seek a
decietataen’ that ,the*,sa1e’ Deed dated 04.06.1998
executed by the 1?’ defendant in favour of the 2″
V defendant: is “null and void. The amendment was
h_a11oked’ the 2″ defendant was impleaded as a party,
ThereefQefprtEe”2″d defendant sold the suit property
M’ to the 3″5 defendant under” a registered Sale Deed
u'” dated. é4p©6.2005. In turn, the 3″i defendant has
=.@3ecuted a registered Agreement of Sale dated
a”ad15_11.2006 in favour’ of defendant No.4″ in the
Dcircumstances, the plaintiff submitted an
application under the provisions of Order 1 Rule
10(2) r/w. Section 151 CPC to implead defendant /
f
Nos.3 and 4 and so also an application IKA. XVIII
under the provisions of Order VI Rule 1? CPC seeking
amendment to the plaint and.asking for a £a1:af5gf»
declaration that the Sale Deed dated 24_d5i2Q§5_and,V4
the Agreement of Sale dated 15.}: EGGS as null and
void and is not binding upon atheifplaintiffo*
Objections to these applications were filed [
3. The matter was_heatd hy the learned Judge
and he has rejected the application tor amendment
filed under’ Qrderl Vin Edie fil€1iéPCmiand¢ allowed ‘the
application riled to’ifiplead’respendent Nos.3 and 4
as defendant*hoefi§fiand;fi respectively in the suit.
Aggrieved by the erder or rejection of I.A, XVIIE,
the petitioner aag.£;iéd this petition.
‘ep4, E1: have heard the learned counsel for the
pe:i:i¢nagSi andf also respondent No.2. The other
Vi’ respendents though served are absent.
n’w5. N The triai Court has taken into
. consideration the provisions of Section 52 of the
~d Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in rejecting the
“application as the Sale Deed saidr to have been
executed. by defendant $0.2 in faveur of defendant
«L.
\/
No.3 and the registered Sale Agreement executed by
defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.$ is during
the pendency of the suit and that .:h¢,Csgia_
transaction was subgect to the result ofpthe\suitQ i
As could be seen from the provisions of Section 52
of the said Act, which reads as under:
“Transfer of propertp pending suih
relating thereto 7 Duringfthe pendencfi
in any Court within
the limits of Indvia._exc–lAuVdi’ng State
of Jammuf and Kashmir vorhuefitablished
beyondfl such fiimyfii ‘gym the Central
Government’ of any hsuit or proceedings
which_is not collusive and in which any
right = to_hfifinofeahle property- is
directly Wands specifically in question,
“the gpropertpf cannot be transferred or
mfitfierwise déai£V with by any party to
f”the,suih or proceeding so as to affect
“CpheVrights of any other party thereto
‘under any decree or order which may be
made: therein, except under the
A’Wauthority of the Court and on such
V”terms as it may impose.”
6. The perusal of the provisions reveal that
from the date of presentation of the piaint under
the Code till the complete satisfaction or discharge.
of” the decree or order obtainedi in the suit, any
transfer made during the pendency* is not binding
upon the party and in case if the plaintiff succeed
in the suit in getting the specific perfermaneeiofe
the contract of sale executed hy_the–ig”‘defendant,u
the subsequent transaction executed ‘bye defendant
No.1 in favour of defenda.nt’.__No..’2x_oi’ »._{iouj.c1_°
not affect the interest of the_pZaintiff in the suit
property.
7. So, when underh the ‘prouisions of lis
pendens, the saiévtransfers are not binding upon the
plaintiff, the .réiie:”.¢£ seeking declaration that
the deeds are not hinding upon him are redundant and
there would be no end to the litigation in case if
then each of the occasion if the sale transaction is
executed by the parties in favour of a nonmparty,
sueh applications will have to be filed aii along
‘and there wiil be no end to the litigation. As in
2ViewVQf the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer
.fofh§roperty Act, the transfer of the preperty is not
p binding upon the interest of the piaintiff, the
“question of seeking amendment of the plaint does not
arise for consideration. In the circumstances, I am
of the opinion, that the trial Court has taken a
just, decision j11 rejecting time application won the
ground. of non–a§plicable of ‘the princigles of, lis
pendens and 13 do not find any merit in this firit
petition. In the circumstances, the getition” gs’
dismissed. a””-
Subfiect to the observations mede shove ahfijss.
the suit is of the year 1395, the_trialKCou:t is”
directed to expedite disposal xof ‘the_ sfiit and
dispose of the same preseréhly within 6 {six} months
from the date ofrcommunicstioniof this Order.
Sd/-
Iudge
K5112?