In the case of Jayaram Mudaliar vs Ayyaswami And Ors. on 12 April, 1972, the Supreme Court of India was called upon to adjudicate a complex matter involving the sale of leasehold land, the doctrine of lis pendens, and the application of the Indian Transfer of Property Act. The case was presided over by a bench consisting of Justices S Sikri, A Ray, and M Beg, with the judgment delivered by Justice M.H. Beg.
Facts of the Case
Jayaram Mudaliar, the appellant, purchased some leasehold land for Rs. 10,500/- from Munisami Mudaliar and others under a sale deed dated 7-7-1958 and some other lands shown in a sales’ certificate dated 15-7-1960, sold to him for Rs. 6,550/- at a public auction of immovable property held to realize the dues in respect of loans taken by Munisami Mudaliar under the Land Improvement Loans’ Act 19 of 1883. Both Jayaram and Munisami were impleaded as co-defendants in a partition suit, in Vellore, Madras, commenced by a pauper application dated 23-6-1958 filed by the plaintiff-respondent Ayyaswami Mudaliar.
The plaintiff-respondent challenged the validity of the sales of land on the ground that these sales, of joint property in suit, were struck by the doctrine of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of the Indian Transfer of Property Act.
Issues
The primary issue before the court was whether the sales of the land were affected by the doctrine of lis pendens. The doctrine of lis pendens, as embodied in Section 52 of the Indian Transfer of Property Act, provides that during the pendency of any suit in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein.
Court’s Observations and Judgment
The court observed that the sales in question were not on behalf of the joint family, and therefore, could not be binding on the whole family. The court also noted that the doctrine of lis pendens cannot be extended to voluntary sales. The court held that the voluntary sale could not bind the whole family, of which Munisami was the karta.
As regards the revenue sale, the court held that any land for the improvement of which loan is shown to have been taken by Munisami Mudaliar would be excluded from the purview of the doctrine of Lis pendens.
In conclusion, the court upheld the doctrine of lis pendens and ruled that the sales of the land were affected by it. The court also held that the sales were not binding on the whole family and that the voluntary sale could not bind the whole family, of which Munisami was the karta. The court also held that any land for the improvement of which loan is shown to have been taken by Munisami Mudaliar would be excluded from the purview of the doctrine of Lis pendens.