- In the case titled K Ravi Prasad Reddy vs. G Giridhar the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh HC has held that section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act which incorporates the doctrine of lis pendens does not operate as a bar to the grant of temporary injunction prohibiting the alienation of the suit property.
- In the instant case, the plaintiff/ respondent had filed a suit seeking a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell against the defendant, directing him to execute his part of the agreement by receiving the entire sale consideration in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff had pleaded that he had always been willing to perform his part of the contract.
- While the suit was pending, the defendant had alienated the suit schedule property in favour of other defendants, thus the petitioner had filed a suit under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for the grant of an interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating their property. This application was allowed by the trial court.
- An appeal was then filed in the HC under Order 43 Rule 1 challenging the order of interim injunction by the lower Court. It was argued by the applicants that section 52 does not create a bar on the alienation of the suit property. The plaintiffs, on the other hand argued that any further alienation of the suit property would cause irreparable damage to the plaintiff and hence it should have been granted. It was also argued by them that section 52 of TPA does not create a bar on the grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 of CPC.
- Referring to a plethora of judgments, the Andhra Pradesh HC observed that the order of temporary injunction is an order which would restrain alienation and is thus pre-emptive in nature, whereas the doctrine of lis pendens as incorporated under section 52 of TPA comes into effect after an alienation has taken effect. Thus, the applicability of section 52 TPA is not in question as there would be no transfer pending the litigation if the application of temporary injunction is granted.
- The primary objective of the grant of temporary injunction is to maintain the status quo and the Court held that the grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 would not be barred by section 52 of TPA.
- Thus, the appeal was dismissed by the HC.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
