RSA No.2526 of 2002 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2526 of 2002 Date of Decision: 10.8.2009 Amar Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Balbir Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Amandeep Agnihotri, Advocate and Shri H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, arising out of a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.2.1982. Vide the aforesaid agreement, Naranjan Singh, defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs.48,000/- i.e. @ Rs.16,000/- per bigha. A sum of Rs.16,000/- was paid as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed on payment of balance amount RSA No.2526 of 2002 (2) on or before 20.6.1983. The plaintiffs claimed to be ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and that the sale deed was not executed even though the notice was issued. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for specific performance on 7.8.1986. Defendant No.1 in his written statement denied execution of any agreement to sell or receipt of earnest money. The plaintiffs filed replication. However, on an application filed by defendant Nos. 2 to 5 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, they were impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 to 5 on the basis of the alleged sale deed dated 25.11.1988 executed by defendant No.1- Naranjan Singh. The plaintiffs, in order to prove the agreement to sell dated 17.2.1982, examined Seetal Singh Scribe as PW3 and Mohinder Singh, Lambardar as PW4, attesting witness of the agreement. It has been stated by the scribe and the attesting witness that the contents of the agreement Exhibit P.2 were read over by the Scribe to Naranjan Singh, who after admitting the same to be correct put his signatures thereon. An amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid to him as earnest money. Mohinder Singh Lambardar and Joga Singh son of Amar Singh, are the attesting witnesses. Plaintiff Hakam Singh himself appeared as PW5. Dewan K.S. Puri, document expert, has proved signatures of Naranjan Singh on Exhibit P.2. The learned trial Court has also recorded the fact that Naranjan Singh was proceeded exparte on 9.3.1989 and has not led any evidence in support of the issues No. 1 to 3. Thus, the said issues in respect of execution of the agreement and payment of the earnest money and the fact that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, were answered in favour of the plaintiffs. RSA No.2526 of 2002 (3) Though the learned trial Court has framed an additional issues to the effect whether the defendant-appellants are bona-fide purchasers for consideration and whether the sale in their favour is hit by the doctrine of lispendens. It returned a finding that the said defendant-appellants have purchased the land vide sale deed dated 25.11.1988 Exhibit D.1. Since the sale was found to be after the filing of the present suit, it was held to be hit by the doctrine of lispendens. Consequently, the plea of bona-fide purchaser without notice is not available to the defendants. In view thereof, the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance was decreed. The said decree has been affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that there was a dispute regarding execution of the sale deed dated 25.11.1988 by Balbir Kaur, attorney of Naranjan Singh in their favour. Such issue has been decided in RSA Nos. 3605 of 2007 (Jaswant Singh v. Mohinder Kumar and others) and 3901 of 2002 (Amar Singh and others v. Sher Singh and others). Therefore, the defendant-appellants are the bona-fide purchasers for value and consideration. The said argument is without any merit. The dispute regarding revocation of General Power of Attorney of Naranjan Singh and its effect and decision by this Court in RSA Nos. 3605 of 2007 and 3901 of 2002, will only result into a valid title having been passed by Naranjan Singh in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 5, the present appellants. The fact remains that the appellants are purchasers during the pendency of the suit, therefore, such purchase is hit by the doctrine of lispendens and such purchase will not affect the rights of the plaintiffs. Doctrine of lispendens has no exceptions. The plea of bona-fide purchaser is RSA No.2526 of 2002 (4) not available to a purchaser of a property pending lis. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 10.8.2009 ds