ARUMUGAM Vs. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The locus-standi of the pendente-lite purchaser to raise the plea/defence of bonafide purchaser for value without notice of earlier transaction (a plea which is available to a purchaser, but not during the pending litigation) is under challenge. The protection under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act is not available to a pendente-lite purchaser by virtue of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, is the main contention raised in the second appeal. In other words, the contention is that Section 19 (1) of the Specific Relief Act, does not over ride Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(2.) The plaintiff Arumugam filed the suit in O.S.No.180 of 1988 before the Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam, seeking the relief of specific performance pursuant to the sale agreement dated 24.12.1987. The suit was filed on 17.2.1988. The second defendant purchased the same property on 14.3.1988, but, based on the earlier sale agreement dated 10.12.1987 (Ex.B1), as assignee of the agreement from one Muthuvel. The following issues were framed:

(3.) With reference to issue Nos. 1 and 4, it was held that the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff was true, valid, enforceable and not unconscionable. With regard to 5, 6 and 7, the findings were