lis pendens - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC. A review cannot re-appreciate evidence or reverse findings as an appeal would. The order under review did not correct a patent error but substituted a view, which is impermissible in review proceedings. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a partition suit (O.S. No. 192 of 2000) filed by Subramani against his father, Munusamy Naidu, concerning ancestral properties. An ex-parte preliminary decree was passed in 2003, dividing the property into two equal shares. The Appellant, Malleeswari, who is the daughter of Munusamy Naidu, was not initially impleaded in this suit. Subsequent to the decree, her father executed a sale deed in favor of the first respo...

The Supreme Court upheld the decree for specific performance of a 2001 land sale agreement, ruling that the plaintiffs proved readiness and willingness under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It nullified subsequent fraudulent sales under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (lis pendens) and affirmed the court’s power to grant possession under Section 22 despite omitted pleadings. The judgment emphasized that mere price escalation cannot deny equitable relief and imposed an additional ₹25 lakh payment to balance interests. Collusive transactions were declared void, reinforcing protections against pendente lite transfers. Facts Of The Case: In 2001, Krishan Gopal (appellant) agreed to sell 9 acres of agricultural land in Punjab to Gurmeet Kaur and her two sons for ₹10 lakh under an Ag...

Tag: lis pendens

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance: Land Sale Agreement Enforced After 24 Years