M M S INVESTMENTS Vs. V VEERAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the learned single Judge in A.S. No. 796 of 1987 dated 2/11/1999 is called in question. The order of the learned single Judge appears to have been passed on a preliminary objection raised by the respondents in the appeal.

(2.) O.S. No. 247 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai, was filed by one Veerappan, the first respondent for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 23.1.1978. Respondents 2 to 9 were impleaded in the suit as owners of the property and it was alleged that the owners had entered into an agreement with him and as the agreement was not complied with, the suit was filed. After the decree was passed by the trial Court, the defendants through their power of attorney, sold large extent of properties including the subject matter of the suit in favour of certain other persons who are the present appellants. In the mean time, defendants 1 to 5 filed appeal in A.S. No. 796 of 1987 before this Court against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 247 of 1981 and the appellants herein being subsequent purchasers filed C.M.P. No. 3707 of 1989 to implead themselves as appellants 6 to 9 in the appeal on the ground that the original appellants 1 to 5, the erstwhile owners, were trying to collude with the first respondent. Appellants I to 5 filed C.M.P. No. 4388 of 1990 to withdraw their power of attorney given in favour of one Chakrapani and Sethuraman. A learned single Judge, of this Court dismissed C.M.P. No. 3707 of 1989 filed by the appellants herein seeking impleadment and allowed C.M.P . No. 4388 of 1990 by order dated 28.6.1990. The appellants filed L.P.A. No. 113 of 1990 against the order of dismissal of C.M.P. No. 3707 of 1989 and also sought for leave to file an appeal against the order allowing C.M.P. No. 4388 of 1990. Both the L.P.A. and C.M.P. No. 9570 of 1990 seeking leave to appeal were disposed of by a common order dated 28.3.1990.L.P.A. No. 113 of 1990 was allowed and with the result the appellants were impleaded as appellants 6 to 9 in the appeal and A.S. No. 796 of 1987 was also directed to be disposed on merits.

(3.) WHILE dealing with the rights of a subsequent purchaser in a suit for specific performance, we may visualise two types of subsequent purchasers. The first would be a purchaser subsequent to an agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff, but prior to the filing of the suit and the second would be a purchaser after the filing of the suit for specific performance. The bar of lis pendens would apply only to the second case.