Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.14 20:28:09 +0530 2025:CGHC:40667 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 861 of 2019 * - Aadharshila Builders Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director, Shri Ajay Shrivastava S/o. Late Shri J.P. Shrivastava Aged About 49 Years. R/o Tilak Nagar District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Objector) ... Petitioner Versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Kiran Kumar Vishwakarma S/o. Shri Virendra Kumar Aged About 45 Years R/o Pachrighat, Juna Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Mohan Kumar Vishwakarma S/o Shri Virendra Kumar Aged About 37 Years R/o Pachrighat Juna Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Shri Rajendra Kumar Vishwakarma S/o. Shri Virendra Kumar Aged About 32 Years R/o. Pachrighat Juna Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 1 To 3 Are Decree Holders) 4 - Shri Rajkumar @ Santosh S/o Shri Virendra Kumar Vishwakarma Aged About 40 Years R/o Link Road, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Shri Sanjay Kumar @ Lallu S/o Shri Virendra Kumar Vishwakarma Aged About 38 Years R/o Link Road, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - A. Smt. Poonam Vishwakarma W/o Late Shri Ajay @ Bhuru Vishwakarma Aged About 30 Years R/o Virendra Maruti Works Shop, Link Road District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6.1 - B. Shri Chunnu @ Guddu @ Chota Bhuru S/o. Late Shri Ajay @ Bhuru Vishwakarma Aged About 5 Years Being Minor Is Represented Through His Aunt Smt. Poonam Vishwakarma, W/o Late Shri Ajay @ Bhuru Vishwakarma, R/o Virendra Maruti Work Shop Link Road District-Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 7 - Shri Shailendra Kumar @ Sonu S/o Shri Virendra Kumar Vishwakarma Aged About 33 Years R/o. Sakin Linkroad, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Smt. Sushma Vishwakarma W/o. Shri Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma Aged About 40 Years R/o Loharpara, District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 9 - Shri Narayan Prasad Vishwakarma S/o. Shri Mahadev Prasad Vishwakarma Aged About 55 Years R/o Pacharighat Juna Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 10 - Smt. Shashi Bai Vishwakarma Widow Of Late Shri Dhannu Prasad Vishwakarma. R/o Loharapara Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 11 - Smt. Sharda Bai Vishwakarma W/o Shri Hari Prasad Vishwakarma, R/o. Loharpara Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2 12 - Smt. Shushila Bai Vishwakarma W/o Shri Shankar Prasad Vishwakarma, R/o Near Kaanch Ghar, District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 13 - Shri Shyamu Prasad Vishwakarma S/o. Shri Sahdev Vishwakarma, R/o Pacharighat Juna Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 14 - Smt. Latabai Vishwakarma Widow Of Late Shri Raju Prasad Vishwakarma, R/o Loharpara, Tehsil- Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 15 - Smt. Bindabai Wd/o. Late Shri Jagdeva Prasad Vishwakarma Aged About 66 Years R/o Pacharighat Juna Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 16 - Shri Yogesh Kumar S/o Shri Sukdev Vishwakarma Aged About 58 Years R/o Pacharighat Juna Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 17 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through-District Collector, District-Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 4 To 17 Are Judgement Debtor) For Petitioner : For Respondents No. 4, 5 & 7 : ... Respondents Ms. Rakshita Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate Mr. Rohitasava Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate For Respondent No. 17 : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order passed by the III rd Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) dated 02.11.2018 in Execution Case No. 12A/2006 whereby an objection raised by the petitioner was turned down. 2. Ms. Rakshita Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a suit for partition, possession and damages against respondents No. 4 to 16. The Civil Suit No. 12A/2006 was decreed vide judgment dated 23.03.2007. During pendency of civil suit, the petitioner herein purchased Survey No. 167/10 admeasuring 0.70 acres which was recorded in the name 3 of Virendra, Yogendra, Surendra, Narayan Prasad, Shyam Narayan, Raju Jagdish through registered sale deed dated 30.03.2002. She would submit that the above stated defendants had right over the suit property upto extent of their share and, therefore, the objection rejected by the learned Executing Court is bad-in-law. She would submit that as the petitioner is bonafide purchaser, the learned Executing Court ought to have allowed the objection raised by the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that during pendency of civil suit, the petitioner purchased the property. They would contend that according to provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the petitioner has no right and the learned Executing Court right rejected his objection. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner purchased the property through registered sale deed dated 30.03.2002 during pendency of civil suit. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act states that the property cannot be transferred, if suit or proceeding is pending consideration except with the permission of the concerned court. 6. The doctrine of lis pendens is a doctrine based on the ground that it is necessary for the administration of justice that the decision of a Court in a suit should be pending not only on the litigating parties but on those who drive title pendelite. The provision of Section 52 does not indeed annul the conveyance or the transfer otherwise, but to render it subservient to the rights of the parties to a litigation. The Hon’ble 4 Supreme Court in the matter of T.G. Ashok Kumar Vs. Govindammal & Anr., 2011 AIR SCW 551 has held in paragraphs 9 and 10 as under:- “9. Section 52 dealing with lis pendens is relevant and it is extracted below : “Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.- During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right of immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the court and on such terms as it may impose.” x x x x x x In Jayaram Mudaliar v. Anyyaswami (AIR 1973 SC 569) this court held that the purpose of Section 52 of the Act is not to defeat any just and equitable claim, but only to subject them to the authority of the court which is dealing with the property to which claims are put forward. This court in Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (2007) 2 SCC 404 : (AIR 2007 SC 1058 : 2007 AIR SCW 948) held that Section 52 of the Act does not declare a pendente lite transfer by a party to the suit as void or illegal, but only makes the pendente lite purchaser bound by the decision in the pending litigation. 10. The principle underlying Section 52 is clear. If during the pendency of any suit in a court of competent jurisdiction which is not collusive, in which any right of an immovable property is directly and specifically in question, such property cannot be transferred by any party to the suit so as to affect the rights of any other party to the suit under any decree that may be made in such suit. If ultimately the title of the pendente lite transferor is upheld in regard to the transferred property, the transferee’s title will not be affected. On the other hand, if the title of the pendente lite transferor is recognized or accepted only in regard to a part of the transferred property, then the transferee’s title will be saved only in regard to that extent and the 5 transfer in regard to the remaining portion of the transferred property to which the transferor is found not entitled, will be invalid and the tranferee will not get any right, title or interest in that portion. If the property transferred pendente lite, is allotted in entirety to some other party or parties or if the transferor is held to have no right or title in that property, the transferee will not have any title to the property. Where a co-owner alienates a property or a portion of a property representing to be the absolute owner, equities can no doubt be adjusted while making the division during the final decree proceedings, if feasible and practical (that is without causing loss or hardship or inconvenience to other parties) by allotting the property or portion of the property transferred pendente lite, to the share of the transferor, so that the bona fide transferee’s right and title are saved fully or partially.” 7. Considering the facts that the petitioner purchased the property during pendency of the suit and thus, the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would attract and in my opinion, the learned Executing Court has not committed any error of law while rejecting objection raised by the petitioner. 8. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti