IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
FAO.No. 268 of 2008()
1. SUSEELA DEVI, D/O. SANKARA PANICKER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RAJESEKHARA PANICKER,
... Respondent
2. S. MADHUSOODHANA PANICKER,
For Petitioner :SRI.VPK.PANICKER
For Respondent :SMT.A.SALINI LAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :12/12/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J
=====================
FAO No.268 OF 2008
=====================
Dated this the 12th day of December 2008
JUDGMENT
This first appeal is preferred against the order of the II Addl.District
Court, Thiruvananthapuram in I.A.No.470 of 2008 in A.S.No.3 of 2007. It
was an application filed for injunction to restrain the respondents in the
appeal from alienating the plaint schedule property and from making any
construction therein till the disposal of the appeal. The appellate court held
that the property had been delivered to the respondents and since it is
already delivered injunction cannot be granted. It also opined that if there is
any alienation it will be subject to the final verdict of the case as it will be
hit by the doctrine of lis pendense under Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act. It is true that the transaction will be hit by Section 52, but at
the same time it may give an opportunity to the purchaser to raise the plea of
bona fide purchase without notice and it may prejudicially affect the
appellant, if she ultimately succeeds in the case. So, I make it clear that if
an alienation is made it is directed that the pendency of the litigation
should be brought to the notice of the purchaser by the respondents while
FAO 268/2008 -:2:-
executing the document and if it is not done, it will go against her interest.
It is also made clear that the respondents are bound to disclose about the
pendency of the appeal in the documents to be executed so that the
purchaser has knowledge about the litigation.
With these observations, the FAO is disposed of
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
Cdp/-