The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 2410212020 passed in lA No. 1 of 2020 in AS No. 92 ol 2020 and disrn ss the above appeal by confirming the order and decree dt. 1010212020 in EA No 20 of 2015 passed bythe ll Addl. District Judge RR District at LB Nagar in the rnterest of justice and pass. Counsel for the Appellants: SRt V. SEETHARAMA AVADHANT Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRt VENKATA RAGHU MANNEPALLT The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT 6 I I I I I I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT No.92 of2O2O JUDGMENT: This appeal suit is filed against the Order dated |O.O2.2O2O in E.A.No.2O of 2Ol5 in D.P.No. 176 of 2015 in O.S.No.60 of 2006, passed by the learned ll-Additional District Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The appellants/claim petitioners are the third parties to the suit. They are claiming the subject property basing on the agreemenL of sale dated 06.07.2005 executed in their favour by the original owner i.e., respondent No.2/JDr. A decree of specific performance grarted in favour of the appellants/claim pctitioners herein against the respondent No.2/JDr in O.S.No.297 of 2O06 dated 25.a6.2O08. Pursuant to the said decree, the respondent No.2/JDr and her lamily members have executed a registered sale deed uide document No.2332 /2013 dated t3.O3.20 i3 in favour of the appeilants / claim petitione rs and thus they claim that they have become the absolute owners and possessors of the subject property.

3. Whcreas, the rcspondent No.1/DHr i.e., subsequent purchaser, had obtained the agreement of sale for the same 2 subject propertv from the respondent No.2/JDr on 23.10.2005, which was culminated in fi1ing a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.6O of 2O06, that resulted in the clecree levied execullon t

4. Appellants herein have filed a claim petition before the executing Court under Order XXI Rule 97 CpC to clismiss the execution petition filed by the respondent No. 1/ DHr. The respondent No. l/DHr had also filed the counter in the said petition. The executing Court after conducting enquiry uide Orders dated I O.02.2020, dismissed the claim petition liled by the appellanrs herein in E.A.No.2O of 2015 in E.p.No.176 of 2015, holding that the suit instituted by the appellants is later rn polnt of time and the salc deed dated 13.O3.2013 was obtained after the degree in favour of respondent No.l /DHr. Therefore, the claim petition filed by the appellants is not maintainable as they are the purchasers during the pend.ent lite and they are not bona ftde purchasers for value. Aggrieved by the said Order, appellants/ claim petitioners preferred the present appeal suit.

5. A list of important dates and events is table hercunder o Date

06.07.2005

23.10.2005

16.01.2006

16.01.2006

16.01.2006 r 01.2006 l Event Agreement of sale by respondent No.2 in favour of appeliants for an extent of Acs.2.20 gts in Sy.No.665 Agrcement of Sale by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No. 1 Gift deed by respondent No.2 in'favour of K.Radhika for an extent ol 0.25 gts in Sy.No.665 Gift deed by respondent No.2 in favour of P.Devi for an extent of O.25 gts in S No.665 Gift deed by respondent No.2 in favour of A.Suresh for an extent of 0.25 gts in S No.665 Gift deed by respondent No.2 in favour of A.Balraj for an extent of 0.25 gts in S .No.665 I I Remarks Ex.A6 trx.R I Ex.Au trx.A9 Ex.A 10 trx.A1l Ex.A l6 I I I l ).7.O2.2006 O.S.No.297 of 2006 is f rled by appcllants against respondent No.2 and the donees for reliefs of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 06.07.2005 and cancellation of the four ift deeds I

06.o2_2006 O.S.No.60 of 2O06 filed by respondent for specific performance of No. I trx.R7 I l2 cment of sale dated 23.10.2OO5

5.06.2008 Decree of specific performance of agrcement of sale dated 06.O7.2005 and also for cancellation of four Gift Decds dated 16.01.2006 in O.S.No.297 of 2006, in favour of appellants and against the respondent No.2 and the donces u nder the Decree of specific performance granted in O.S.No.60 of 2006 [t dceds

23.06.201t

28.O3.2012 Execution Petition is fi1ed in O.S.No.60 of 2O06 trx.A5 Admitted fact and appearin g pleading S. 4

13.03.2013 Sale deed executed by respondent No.2 and family members in favour of the appellants for the land of Acs.2_2O gts in Sy.No.665, subject matter 01. O.S.No.297 of 2006.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellants contencled that the executing Court did not frame proper points for consideration. Admittedly, there are two decrees by two competent Courts of law and the point that would arise for consideration is as to whether the decree in favour of the appellants herein will have precedence over the decree in favour of the respondent No.1 in the matter of allowing the claim petition. The agreement of sale in favour of the claim petitioner was dated 06.07.2OOS and the agreement of sale in favour of the respondent No. 1 was dated 23.10.2005. Ir is well settled that a decree passc:d by thc competent Court of law continues to be a decree enlorceable in Iaw and the decrec will not lost its significance, importance and executabiliq unless it is set aside in accordance with 1aw. In any event, the respondent No.1 has not challenged the decree obtained in favour of the appellants herein. He also contended that merely because there is some delay in execution, it cannot be said that the decree was not enforceable or not valid. Further, the payment of additional amount would show that in order to bu.y peace, appellants herein parted ,,vith additional amounts and got the sale deed executed by all other family -) 5 members and third parties. Merely because the sale deed was got executed by other family members, it cannot be said that the sale deed obtained by the appellants is not bona fide. Hence, the sale deed under Ex.Al dated 13.O3.2013, uide document No.2332 of 2013, executed pursuant to and in furtherance of the rlecree in O.S.No.297 ol 2O06 d,ated 06.02.2006 is valid and binding on all the respondents herein.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.l in his arguments stated as follovvs: a) In agreement between tle appellants and respondent No.2 herein, an ante'dated agreement of sole brought into eistence onlg to defeat the case and claim of the respondent No.1. b) The said O.5.No.297 of 2006 utas ftled 11 days after O.S.No.6O of 2OO6 filed bg respondent No.l herein seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 23.10.2OO5. c) The said O.5.No.297 of 2O06 Loas an ex-porte d.ecree, tuhereas, the respondent No.2 contested O.S.No.6O of 2OO6 (filed bg the respondent No.l) bg tooth and nail. d) The appellonts herein, despite hauing an ex-parte decree, did not take ang action for more than 5 yeors to get a sale deed in their fauoun On the antrary, the appellants and respondents in collusion exeanted the sale deed dated 13.O3.2O13 after tlrc respondent No'1 6 herein filed an E.P in 2O12 for exeantion of decree in O.S.No.60 of 2OO6. e) There is no u.thisper is pleadings or euidence in O.S.No.60 of 2O06 by respondent No.2 herein about the alleged gtft deeds, agreement of sale .of the claim petitioner dated 06.O7.2O05 or about the pagment of sale consideration under the agreement of sale d-ated 06.07.2005 or about the additional pagment of Rs.25,00,0OO/ in 2O13 bg appellants to respondent No.2. fl The arrag of parties to AOS and sale deed betu.teen the appellants and respondent No.2 are com.pletelg different artd there is no explonation about the sante. g) There is no uhisper about the aduance sale consideration paid under AOS of 2006 in the sale deed of 2O13 bettueen the appellants and respondent No.2. h) Most importantlg, euen in the present grounds of appea.l as utell as the arguments aduanced by the oppellants, th-ere is no explanation or justification giuen uith regard to the difference of parties and the amount paid/ receiued in the AOS of 2006 uis-<i-uis sale deed of

2013. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 further statt:d that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record as well as the depositions of the parties concerned and after due consideration has passed a Judgment and decree dated IO.O2.2O2O, dismissing the claims of the appellants by giving reasoning and thus the present appeal suit is_liable to be 7 dismissed with exemplary costs on the appellants for resorting to vexatious litigation in collusion and connivance with the respondent No.2 herein, who has remained ex-parte even before this Court.

8. The executing Court is of the view that, as the sale deed I was obtained by the appellants during the pendency of the suit hled by respondent No. 1/DHr in O.S.No.6O of 20O6, the appellants are not entitled to file the claim petitions under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. Then the question arises is that "u.thether a third partg to the suit, tttho is in possession of the propertA can resist the execution and make application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC." The said question was already settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Har Vllas Vs- Mahendra Nath o;nd others,lin which it was held as follows: "a third person claiming to be in possession of the propertA forming the subject-matter of decree in his oun right can resist deliuery o.f possession euen by Jiling an objection under Order 2 I Rule 97 of the Code of Ciuil Procedure in tle executing court itself and if that is done, the objection shall haue to be determined bg the executing court itself."

9. Thus, the above principle is a settled legal position, the Court below observed in Para No. 14 of the impugned Order that '20u (r5) scc 177 8 the "suif instituted bg P.W.1 and others is latter in point of time and Ex.Al is obtained euen after the decree in fauour of RW1. I am of the uieut that the claim petition filed. under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is not m.aintainable as t?e claiq petitioners dre purchasers duing pendente lite", is erroneous, in view- of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hor Vilas Mahendra case(supra).

10. The Court below is of the view that the suit filed by the respondent No.1/DHr in O.S.No.6O of 2006 is first in point of time to the suit frled by the appellants in O.S.No.297 of 2006 and also of the view that the appellants have purchased the property during the pendency ol the litigation, which comes under the principle of lis pendens. As such, the claim petitions are not maintainable. I

11. The execution of the agreement of sale by the respondent No.2/JDr in favor of the appellants is dated 06.07.2O05, whereas the agreement of sale executed by respondent No.2/JDr in lavor of respondent No. 1/DHr is dated 23.10.2OO5. The present appellants are claiming rights as per the agreement of sale dated 06.O7.2005, which is anterior at point of time (about 3 months 17 days). The Court below did not consider the I I 9 fact that the agreement of sale obtained by the appellants from the respondent No.2/JDr is prior to the agreement of sale claimed by the respondent No. 1/DHr.

72. The trial Court failed to consider the settled principle of law laid down by this Court in the case of V. Srtniaasa Reddg Vs. N.Hanumantha Reddg,2 that the date of the agreement has to be taken into consideration, but not the date of execution of sale deed. The said legal position was ignored by the trial Court. In fact, the suit in O.S.No.60 of 2006 was filed after the agreement of sale of the appellants dated O6'07.2005 and therefore, the question of lis pendens does not arise.

13. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bishan Singh and others Vs. Khazan Singh and anothet,3 in which it was held as follows: "The doctrine of lis pendens applies onlg to a transfer pendente lite, but it cannot affect a pre-existing ight. If the sale is a tronskr in recognition of a pre-existing and subsisting igh| it would not be affected by the doctrine, as the said transfer did not create neu) ight pendente lite; but if the pre-existing right became unenforceable by reason of the fact of limitation or otlenaise, the tronsfer, ? 20l8 (6) ALD 68 ' AIR 1958 SC 838 I l0 though ostertsiblg made in recognition of such a ight, in fact created onlg a neut ight pendente lite. "

14. The above judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishan Singh case (supra), further clarifies that the subsisting right or a pre-existing right of a person should not be affected by the doctrine of lis pendens. The appellants have obtained the agreement of sale dated 06.07.2005 prior to the execution of agreement trf sale dated 23.7O.2OO5 in favour of respondent No. l/DHr. The appellants, by virtue of the agreement of sale prior in time, acquired a subsisting right over the subject property and the rights created in favour of respondent No.1/DHr is subsequent to the rights of the appellants.

15. As such, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of tlre judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Bishan Singh ccrse (supra), the doctrine of lis pendens is not zrpplicable, as the appellants have acquired title in their own right, legally upheld by the competent Court by decree in O.S.No.297 of 20O6, hled for specific performance of agreement of sale dated

06.07.2005, rvhich was decreed on 25.06.2008 and by virtue of the said decree, the respondent No.2/JDr and her family members executcd a registered sale deed dated 13.03.2013 and legally conferred right and title against the subject property. l

16. The Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 addresses the priority of rights created by transfers of immovable property. It establishes a legal framework for determining which rights take precedence when multiple transfers occur over the same property at different times. It is settled principle of law that when a person creates rights in or over the same immovable property at different times, and these rights cannot coexist or be fully exercised together, the later created rights are subordinate to the earlier rights unless there is a special contract or reservation that binds the earlier transferees. 17 . In the present case also, the appellants' have claimed the rights as per the agreement of sale dated 06.07.2005, which is alterior at point of time and which culminated in fi1ing of a suit for specific performance and after the suit is decreed, the sale deed was executed by the respondent No.2/JDr dnd her family members. The agreement of sale dated 23.10.2O05 in favour of the respondent No. 1 / DHr are later created rights which are subordinate to the rights created in favour of the appellants under the agreement of sale dated 06.07.2005. As such, the said transfer or sale in favour of the appellants by the I I I I l. l) respondent No.2/JDr is relating to a subsisting right and which is created in thcir favour by virtue of the anterior agreement of sale dated 06.07.2005. Therefore, the doctrine of lis pendens cannot affect ar-rd is not applicable to the pr.esent czrse of the appellants. iB. The obscrvation of thc trial Court, at Para l l of the impugned C)rder, reads as under: "When entire sale consideration utas paid, except Rs.5O,O00/ , uthy Ex.Al LUas obtained bg paging Rs.2S Iakhs is a thousand dollar question. Rs.25.00 lakhs uas paid bll LUIA of bank challan dated 13.03.2013. It means, the pagments alleged to haue been made under Ex.A6 Agreement are giuen go-bge. In other taords, besides Rs.2S.OO lakhs and the amount of Rs.4,7S,OOO/ - made under Ex A6, nearlg Rs.29.00 lakhs and odd u-tas paid to the respondent No.2 and her familg mentbers. Only o suteeping remark was made t para 5 of Ex. Al that the sale deed wos executed as per the orders of Pinciptrl Senior Ciuil Judge in O.5.No.297/20O6 dated 25.06.2008. I am reiterating, at the cost of repetition, that the decree Is othenuise and not in conformity tl,ith the auerment rnade in Ex AL This all goes to shotu that pWI and his co-purchasers are not bona fide purchasers for ualue. "

19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shanti Bhusha,n and. others Vs. State ol ttttar Pradesh and others,a at para No.23, held as follows: I 2023 SCC ()nti|le s('489 *23. Hence, when a sale deed is presented for registration, the registeing authoitg must ascertain the correct market ualue of the propertA subject matter of the docLtment on the date of exeantion of the doatment. The stamp dutg is pagoble on tLe basis of such market ualue and not on the consideration mentioned in the doanment. If the consideration mentioned is more than the market ualue, the stamp duty rtill be pagable on the consideration shoun. Moreouer, the market ualue mentioned in the agreement for sale or the market ualue preuailing on the date of tLrc agreement or the market ualue preuailing on the date on u,thich the bargain toas struck is of no releuance for deciding the stomp duty. Tte releuant market ualue is the one uhich preuoils on the date of exeantion of the conuegance." Therefore, the above said obscrvation at Para 11 of the impugned Order of the trial Court are erroneous and against the settled principle of law in Shonti Bhusho.n case (supra)-

20. The appellants being the prior agreement holders and obtained the sale deed dated 13.03.2Oi3 from respondent No.2/JDr and family members, after passing of the decree in O.S.No.6O of 2006 on 23-06.2011, cannot be regarded as lis pendens purchase ignoring the date of agreements of sale of both the parties. Apart from that, the decree obtained by the respondent No. 1/DHr on 23.06.2011 cannot override the rights of the appellants which are crystallized in their suit in O.S.No.297 of 2006 by the decree dated 25.06-2008 for specific performance in respect ofthe subject property- I t4 6'

21. Thus, the appellants' agreement of sale is prior in point of time. This means the subsequent transferor/ respondent No. 1 / DHr cannot get the rights that undermine the rights already established by an earlier transfer in favour of the appellants. It is sufhcient to hold that the appellants have interest in the subject property which is in execution, but they are not bound bv the decree in execution. 22- The respondent No. l/DHr could not have been said to have a better title than the appellants whose rights in the property were crystallized by decree in O.S.No.297 ol 2006 dated 25.0(r-2008. Mere pendency of the suit for specihc performant;e llled by the respondent No.l /DHr against re spondent No.2/JDr in O.S.No.60 of 2006 does not and cannot nullify, though it was ended-in granting a decree on 23.O6.2O11 which is in execution before the Court below. The Court below in the impugned Order has no power to declare the decree obtained by thc appellants earlier, as inoperative and is not bonafide.

23. As such, in the facts and circumstances of thc case and in view of the.judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in glshan ( ( l5 Singh case (supra) the doctrine o[ lis pendens is not applicable, as the appellants have acquired title in their own right, legally upheld by the competent Court decree in O.S.No.297 of 2006 filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated

06.07 .2OO5 which was decreed on 25.06.2O08 and by virtue of the said decree, the respondent No.2/JDr and her family members executed a registered sale deed dated 13.03.2013 and legally conferred right and title against the subject propcrty.

24. In the result, the present appeal suit is allowed by setting aside the Judgment and decree dated lO.O2.2O2O passed by the trial Court in E.A.No.2O of 2015 in E.P.No. 176 of 2015 in O.S.No.60 of 2006. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The ll additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy district at LB Nagar (with SECTION OFFICER records if any)

2. One CC to Sri V. Seetharama Avadhani, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, Advocate [OPUC] 4. fwo CD Copies Plp/psl v I HIGH COURT DATED:01 10412025 (2drafts) JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.92 of 2020 r($ \i,, \jl- !\ T qF T€ (4 ? '{ .$ s\s 93iH + ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY HE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT NO: 92OF 2020 Between: '1. Sri J Venkateshwar Reddy, S/o Late J.Krishna Reddy, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Business, Rlo 2-3-6411 147133/3, Tirumalanagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad. 2. Sri V.Rushikesh, S/o Late V.Kailasham, Aged about 5'1 years, Occ. Business, R/o H NO 16-1 1-51 1lDl77, Shalivahanagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. AND ..,APPELLANTS/CLAIM PETITIONERS

1. Sudi Bala Reddy, S/o Late Raji Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Kondapur Village, Ghatkesar I\/andal, Ranga Reddy District

2. Smt Ande Anasuya, Wo Eswaraiah, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Household, R/o Venatapur Village, Korremula Post, Ghatkesar [t/andal, R.R.District ...RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER ...RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR Appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC against the order and decree dated 10-A2-2020 passed in EA No 20 of 2015 (Originally EA No 89 ot 2014) in E.P.No 176 of 2015 (Originally EP No 65/2012) in OS No 60i2006 on the file of the court of the ll additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy district at LB Nagar This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. Seetharama Avadhani, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Appeal Suit be and hereby is allowed by setting aside the Judgment and decree dated '10.02.2020 passed by the trial Court in E.A.No.20 of 2415 in E.P.No.176 of 2015 in O.S.No.60 of 2006; and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K, SRTNIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTI ON OFFICER To, . The tt additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy district at LB Nagar . Two CD Copies 1 2 w HIGH COURT DATED:0110412025 (2drafts) DECREE AS.No.92 of 2020 (. oF TEt x< .\s u $ .9 >i +l I / .^c'."",y' !9 rFt + ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS. (o x%/Xt'