Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest JudgementTransfer of Property Act, 1882

RAJU NAIDU VERSUS CHENMOUGA SUNDRA & ORS., 2025

Section 53A TPA cannot be invoked by a transferee who knowingly enters into an agreement during the pendency of a suit that challenges the property transfer.

Supreme Court of India·21 March 2025
RAJU NAIDU VERSUS CHENMOUGA SUNDRA & ORS., 2025
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

21 March 2025

Judges

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia ⦁ Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • The respondent’s father executed a Will in favor of Respondent No. 9 for the 'B' Schedule property.
  • The respondents contested the Will in a civil suit, claiming the property.
  • Simultaneously, the appellant entered into a sale agreement with the respondent's father for the same property.
  • The Trial Court ruled in favor of the respondents, and the Appellate Court upheld the decision.
  • The Executing Court allowed the respondents to claim the property, directing the appellant to deposit ₹40,000 and deliver possession of the property.
  • The appellant challenged the Executing Court's decision and invoked Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in his defense.

Issues

  1. Whether Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, can be invoked by the appellant to protect the sale agreement despite the pendency of the litigation.
  2. Whether the Executing Court had the jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the advance amount.
  3. Whether the appellant, aware of the pending litigation, could assert a claim under Section 53A to obstruct the respondent’s rights over the property.

Held

  • Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to the appellant's case.
  • The Court held that the appellant's entry into the sale agreement during pending litigation did not provide him any valid protection.
  • The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Analysis

  • The Court reiterated the principle of lis pendens, which prevents a party from acquiring rights that can defeat the claims of parties already involved in pending litigation.
  • A transferee with knowledge of pending litigation cannot obstruct or interfere with the rights of the decree holders.
  • The Court observed that the Trial Court’s decision was superseded by the Appellate Court’s ruling, which did not have a time limit, and therefore, the Executing Court was not bound by the Trial Court’s timeline for deposit.
  • The Court clearly stated that Section 53A TPA cannot be invoked by a transferee who knowingly enters into an agreement during the pendency of a suit that challenges the property transfer.
  • The appellant could not use this provision to frustrate the rights of the decree holders, as he was aware of the ongoing litigation at the time of entering into the sale agreement.
  • The Court upheld the Executing Court’s decision to grant an extension for the deposit, stating that the Executing Court had the jurisdiction to do so, as the Appellate Court's ruling prevailed over the Trial Court’s order.
  • The Court reaffirmed that rights under Section 53A TPA do not trump the rights of those who have secured judicial decrees over the property.
  • The appeal was dismissed as it was found to be without merit.