IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 FAO.No. 268 of 2008() ------------------------------ I.A.470/2008 IN AS.3/2007 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN IA/APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUSEELA DEVI, D/O. SANKARA PANICKER, SANKARA MANDIRAM, VALIYATHURA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER RESPONDENTS/COUNTER. PETITIONER IN IA/RESPONDENTS-DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJESEKHARA PANICKER, S/O. SANKARA PANICKER, JYOTHI BHAVAN, KOCHU ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. S. MADHUSOODHANA PANICKER, LEKSHMI VIHAR, VENPALAVATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SMT.A.SALINI LAL FOR R1, R2 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== FAO No.268 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 12th day of December 2008 JUDGMENT This first appeal is preferred against the order of the II Addl.District Court, Thiruvananthapuram in I.A.No.470 of 2008 in A.S.No.3 of 2007. It was an application filed for injunction to restrain the respondents in the appeal from alienating the plaint schedule property and from making any construction therein till the disposal of the appeal. The appellate court held that the property had been delivered to the respondents and since it is already delivered injunction cannot be granted. It also opined that if there is any alienation it will be subject to the final verdict of the case as it will be hit by the doctrine of lis pendense under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is true that the transaction will be hit by Section 52, but at the same time it may give an opportunity to the purchaser to raise the plea of bona fide purchase without notice and it may prejudicially affect the appellant, if she ultimately succeeds in the case. So, I make it clear that if an alienation is made it is directed that the pendency of the litigation should be brought to the notice of the purchaser by the respondents while FAO 268/2008 -:2:- executing the document and if it is not done, it will go against her interest. It is also made clear that the respondents are bound to disclose about the pendency of the appeal in the documents to be executed so that the purchaser has knowledge about the litigation. With these observations, the FAO is disposed of M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-