KANAKA PRAKASAN Vs. GIRIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This arises from the order in EA.No.173/2016 in EP.No.82/2015 in OS.No.497/1996 of the Munsiff Court, Vaikom.

(2.) The first respondent filed OS.No.497/1996 for specific performance of an agreement for sale, entered into with the 2nd respondent. The suit was decreed, which was taken in appeal before the appellate court. It was partly allowed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in appeal, second appeal was filed as RSA.No.55/2004 before this court. It was also dismissed. The judgment and decree was put in execution. In the execution stage, EA.No.173/2016 was filed by the petitioner herein, under Order 21 Rule 101 read with Section 47 CPC, contending that the petitioner therein had purchased the property involved in the execution from the judgment debtors on 1.6.2011. It was contended that the RSA was dismissed for default on 01.06.2011. It was restored to file on 12.02.2014. It was after the dismissal of the above application that the sale was effected. Hence, it was contended that he was a bonafide purchaser for consideration and hence entitled for protection of the property. It was also contended that the decree was not binding on him, he being a bonafide purchaser, without notice about the prior transaction.

(3.) The decree holder objected to the above, contending that the appeal was subsequently restored, which confirmed the decree passed by the trial court. Hence, the principle lis pendens would be applicable., it was argued.