MOHAMMED HANEEFA Vs. RADHAMANI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree for specific performance of contract for sale put in execution. During the course of execution steps were taken to get delivery of possession of property. It was obstructed at first on 5/12/2007 and thereafter on 11/03/2008. The decree holder thereon filed E.A.No.201/2008 on 1/4/2008 to remove the obstruction. It was allowed. It was taken up in appeal in A.S.No.64/2008 before the Sub Court, Hosdurg, but the Appellate Court concurred with the order passed by the execution court by dismissing the appeal on 28/2/2009, against which the obstructor came up with this second appeal.

(2.) There is no much dispute with respect to the passing of a decree for specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property having an extent of two acres. The obstructor/the appellant is a subsequent purchaser of the property having an extent of one acre out of the large extent of two acres under Ext.B1 document dated 21/11/1995. It was purchased during the pendency of the second appeal pertaining to the decree passed for specific performance. The contention raised by the appellants/the obstructors is that they had purchased the property having an extent of one acre without noticing the pendency of litigation and they were totally unaware of the proceedings. Subsequent to the purchase they took possession and made improvements by constructing building therein.

(3.) Both the execution court and the First Appellate Court rejected the contention raised by the appellant being a pendente lite transferee, he is bound by the decree, as the transfer was effected during the pendency of the second appeal/pending litigation.