In the present case, an agreement to sell was entered between the Appellant and Respondent No.3. According to the Appellant, Respondent No.3 intended to alienate the subject matter property in favour of Respondent No. 4. The Appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction from the Trial Court to restrain the Respondent No. 3 to alienate the property. Respondent No.3 alienated the property in favour of Respondent No. 4 despite the enforcement of the injunction against him. In this case, Respondent No.3 claimed that the principles of lis- pendens provided under Section 52 of TPA will not be applicable. In addition, the Appellant filed a suit for specific performance. The Trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant with costs and directed respondent no. 3 to accept balance sale consideration and execute the agreement to sell. The Appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Again, the Appellant filed a second appeal before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The High Court reversed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and dismissed the suit of specific performance filed by the Appellant. Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Whether non-applicability of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1881, will bar the applicability of principles of lis-pendens?

The Court observed that “the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction on 21.07.2003 and obtained an order of temporary injunction on 28.07.2003. As of 21.07.2003 the doctrine of lis pendens would take its effect. The release deed executed by respondent no. 3 in favour of respondent no. 4 was of 28.07.2003, which is subsequent to the filing of the suit. Respondent no. 4 executed the registered sale deed in favour of respondents 1-2 on 16.06.2004 which is during the operation of the temporary injunction order. Thus, the alienation made by respondents, cannot operate against the interests of the appellant considering he had obtained an order of temporary injunction in his favour.”

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court. The Court held that the non-applicability of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1881, will not bar the applicability of principles of lis-pendens.