RAJU NAIDU VERSUS CHENMOUGA SUNDRA & ORS. 2025 (SC) 331

(Latest Judgement)

The Bench Comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Introduction:

The Supreme Court held that protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is unavailable to a person who knowingly enters into an agreement despite being aware of pending litigation. The Court held that such a transferee cannot obstruct decree holders' rights.

Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Doctrine of part performance.
Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Lis pendens principle.
Doctrine of Merger – Applied in the context of appellate court rulings superseding lower court decisions.

Facts:

A property dispute arose concerning ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. The respondent’s father executed a Will in favor of respondent No. 9 for ‘B’ schedule property. The respondents challenged the Will in a civil suit. Meanwhile, the appellant entered into a sale agreement with the respondent’s father. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the respondents, which was upheld by the Appellate Court. The Executing Court allowed execution, directing the appellant to vacate the property after deposit of ₹40,000.

Issues:

Whether the appellant could claim protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act despite knowledge of pending litigation?
Whether the Executing Court had the jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the advance amount?

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The Executing Court lacked jurisdiction to extend the deposit timeline. Claimed protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The appellant entered into the agreement despite knowing about the pending suit. Under the principle of lis pendens, the appellant could not claim rights superior to the decree holders.

Court’s Analysis:

Relied on Chandi Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad (2004) and upheld that Section 53A cannot override decree holders’ rights. Stated that lis pendens applies, and rights of transferee pendente lite are limited. Held that the Executing Court’s extension of time for deposit was valid.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling. Held that Section 53A does not apply when the transferee enters into an agreement knowing of ongoing litigation. Dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.

Posted By: Aishwarya Chourasia

Back