LAWS(APH)-1997-10-74

S HUSSAIN Vs. SHAH PURCHAND

Decided On October 15, 1997
S.HUSSAIN Appellant
V/S
SHAH PURCHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This L.P, A. arises out of thejudgment of our learned brother Gopal Rao J., in AS.No. 1565 of 1984 filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the judgement in O.S.No. 12 of 1979 (On the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur).

(2.) The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 19-9-1976 (Ex: A, 1) admittedly entered into between the first defendant in the suit acting for himself as well as the minor sons i.e. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 and the plaintiff. An alternative relief for awarding 'damages' to the tune of Rs.40,000.00 representing die consideration paid under Ex:A.1 was also sought for. The suit schedule properly consists of two mulgies/shops together with adjacent vacant site situate in Guntur town. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule premises is part of the larger building belonging to defendant Nos.1 to 3 which was subsequently purchased under an agreement of sale dated 27-3-1978 (Ex:B.5) by the appellants herein (Defendant Nos.4 and 5 in the suit). It is also not in dispute that the property in question is joint family property. The trial Court refused to grant the specific performance on the ground that the appellants herein (Defendant Nos.4 and 5 in the suit) are bona fide purchasers for value without notice. However, a decree was granted for payment of Rs.40,000.00 in terms of the alternative relief sought for.

(3.) Alter the judgement was rendered in the suit, the appellants herein got the sale deed registered and such sale- deed was executed by Defendant Nos.2 and 3' as well who by that time became majors. However, in view of the indisputable legal position that the said sale which was effected pending the litigation is hit by the doctrine of its pendens, its validity and binding nature is subject to the ultimate outcome of the legal proceedings. Hence, the learned Counsel for the appellant has very rightly not placed reliance on the factum of execution of the sale deed subsequent to the disposal of the suit.