R.S.A.No. 19 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 19 of 2011 Date of decision: 5.1.2011 Satya Parkash Tyagi ......Appellant Versus Sameer Bhatia .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for declaration challenging judgment and decree dated 10.8.2007 passed in civil suit No.2/2005 titled Sameer Bhatia vs. Attar Singh and sale deed dated 24.1.2008 executed through Court. The suit filed by the plaintiff- appellant was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.5.2010. Aggrieved by the same, appellant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.8.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat Hence, R.S.A.No. 19 of 2011 2 the present appeal by the plaintiff-appellant. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Plaintiff-appellant filed suit for declaration challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.8.2007 passed in civil suit No.2 of 2005 tilted “Sameer Bhatia vs. Attar Singh and sale deed dated 24.1.2008, on the averments that Satbir, Raj Kumar and Mukesh had purchased the suit land, detailed in the headnote of the plaint, from Attar Singh and Ramesh for a valuable consideration of Rs.9,70,125/- vide registered sale deed dated 17.2.2005 and from them, he purchased the same for a valuable consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 13.10.2005. The defendant in collusion with Attar Singh filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of alleged agreement to sell dated 16.1.2003 and succeeded in illegally obtaining a decree for specific performance on 10.8.2007. Thereafter, in execution of the said decree, the sale deed was executed by Sompal, Stenographer of the Court, on behalf of Attar Singh on 24.1.2008 in favour of the defendant. Satbir and others were bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration without any notice or knowledge of the alleged agreement to sell in favour of R.S.A.No. 19 of 2011 3 the defendant. They were delivered possession of the suit land by Attar Singh and Ramesh. Similarly, the plaintiff is also a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration and Satbir and others had delivered possession of the suit land to him. Thus, the judgment and decree dated 10.8.2007 and sale deed dated 24.1.2008 are null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. However, the defendant on the basis of the said decree and sale deed was bent upon to alienate the suit land in favour of some third person and interfere in the possession of the plaintiff forcibly and illegally and refused to accede to his request desisting from illegal design 3. The defendant filed written statement controverting the claim of the plaintiff on various grounds. Objections have bee raised that the plaintiff has no locus standi; that the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his acts and conduct; that the suit is not maintainable in the present form; that the suit is bad for non joinder of Attar Singh and that the suit is malafide. On merits, it has been submitted that the defendant had filed suit for specific performance against Attar Singh on 4.1.2005, on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 16.1.2003 and obtained injunction regarding sale of the suit land to any person. Attar Singh was served with notice of R.S.A.No. 19 of 2011 4 the said suit on 22.1.2005. However, he alienated the suit land in violation of the order of the court on 17.2.2005 in order to cheat the defendant. The plaintiff purchased the suit land during pendency of the suit for specific performance, therefore, the judgment and decree is binding upon him also. The plaintiff alongwith Raj Kumar and Satbir had also filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure during execution proceedings, but their objections were dismissed vide order dated 30.9.2009. Neither Satbir and others nor the plaintiff can claim bonafide purchaser of the suit land. Satbir and others were in the knowledge of the agreement to sell dated 16.1.2003 and the pendency of the suit filed by the defendant. Even the plaintiff knew about the entire proceedings and the agreement to sell. It has been denied that there was collusion between the defendant and Attar Singh and fraud was committed by Attar Singh and the defendant, as alleged. It has also been denied that Attar Singh and others and they in turn delivered possession of the same to the plaintiff. It has been asserted that the judgment and decree dated 10.8.2007 is perfectly correct, legal and binding upon the plaintiff. Other allegations made in the plaint have been specifically denied.” R.S.A.No. 19 of 2011 5 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Parties were not at dispute qua the facts of the case. Attar Singh and Ramesh Kumar had executed an agreement to sell dated 16.1.2003 in favour of Sameer Bhatia but had failed to execute the sale deed in his favour in terms of the said agreement. Thereafter, defendant Sameer Bhatia filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 16.1.2003 and the said suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.8.2007. In execution proceedings, impugned sale deed dated 24.1.2008 was got executed in favour of the defendant through Court. Satbir Singh and others had purchased the suit land from Attar Singh vide sale deed dated 17.2.2005 and thereafter, they sold the same to appellant/plaintiff Satya Parkash Tyagi vide sale deed dated 13.10.2005. Thus, Attar Singh had sold the suit property during the pendency of the suit filed by the defendant for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.1.2003 as the defendant had filed the suit on 4.1.2005. In these circumstances, the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was hit by principle of lis pendence. Since the impugned sale deed had been executed in pursuance of decree passed by the Court, learned Courts below rightly held that now the same could not be set aside on the basis of some compromise executed between the parties. The compromise R.S.A.No. 19 of 2011 6 Ex.CX was executed on 22.8.2009. The courts below have rightly held that the impugned judgment and decree and the sale deed could not be set aside on the basis of compromise dated 22.8.2009 as the sale deed in question had been executed prior to the said compromise in terms of the judgment and decree dated 10.8.2007. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 05, 2011 anita