RSA No. 3018 of 2009 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3018 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.8.2009 Mukhtiar Singh ......Appellant Versus Shbhaj Khan 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 Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The appellant is purchaser of the land measuring 4 kanals from Mani Ram defendant No.1 vide sale deed dated 28.2.2005 i.e., during the pendency of the appeal before the first Appellate Court. Plaintiff Shahbaj Khan has sought specific performance of an agreement dated 6.1.1995/11.3.1995 in respect of the land measuring 16 kanals entered by the plaintiff with defendant No.1 Mani Ram. The total sale consideration was Rs.2,50,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.1,31,000/- was paid as earnest money and the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,19,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed for which 15.12.1995 was the agreed date. Since the defendant did not RSA No. 3018 of 2009 (O&M) (2) execute the sale deed even though requested by the plaintiff, the present suit for specific performance was filed on 21.1.1998. The plaintiff has impleaded Mehar Singh as defendant No.2 in whose favour sale deed dated 11.5.1998 was executed in respect of the land measuring 4 kanals. The learned trial Court returned a finding that the agreement to sell dated 6.1.1995 Exhibit PW4/A stands proved for sale of the land measuring 16 kanals on the basis of statements of PW1 Mehar Singh and PW2 Nishan Singh, attesting witness as well as the statement of the plaintiff, who appeared as PW3. The learned trial Court also considered the statement of Mani Ram, the vendor, who appeared as DW2, who deposed that he knew plaintiff as also the deed writer Mai Chand. The trial Court also found that defendant Mani Ram has executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 11.5.1998. The Court found that such sale deed has been executed during the pendency of the suit, therefore, defendant No.2 is not a bona-fide purchaser for valuable consideration. After finding that the said sale deed is executed during the pendency of the suit, the said sale was set aside and the suit decreed. During the pendency of an appeal filed by the purchaser i.e., defendant No.2, he on the strength of the sale deed dated 11.5.1998 from defendant No.1 Mani Ram, executed another sale deed in favour of the present appellant on 28.2.2005. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court were affirmed in appeal. It was found that the sale deed dated 11.5.1998 executed by Mani Ram in favour of defendant No.2 is ineffective as the same has been executed after the filing of the suit. With the said finding, the appeal filed by the Mehar Singh vendee from Mani RSA No. 3018 of 2009 (O&M) (3) Ram was dismissed. The application filed by the present appellant for his impleadment as a party, was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that he has purchased specific land comprising in Killa No. 18 measuring 4 marlas and that the appellant has purchased the said land without any notice of the pending litigation, therefore, the appellant is a bona-fide purchaser for value and consideration. It is also argued that the first Appellate Court has wrongly dismissed the application filed by the appellant for impleading him as a party in the appeal filed by defendant No.2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The appellant has purchased the land measuring 4 marlas from Mehar Singh, during the pendency of the first appeal filed by him. Any sale of land during the pendency of the litigation cannot affect the rights of the plaintiff. Therefore, the sale in favour of the present appellant during the pendency of the appeal before the first Appellate Court, is wholly inconsequential as against the rights of the plaintiff in respect of the land measuring 16 kanals, which is subject matter of agreement dated 6.1.1995/11.5.1995. It is not the case of the appellant that Mani Ram has any other saleable land which could possibly convey any title in favour of the appellant. The doctrine of lispendens does not require the notice of the pending litigation to the prospective vendee. However, it is open to the appellant to take recourse to recover the sale consideration paid to Mani Ram, if any, in accordance with law. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material RSA No. 3018 of 2009 (O&M) (4) 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 17-08-2009 ds