NIVARTI GOVIND INGALE AND ORS.versusRAVANAGOUDA BHIMANGOUDA PATIL

A                   NIVARTI GOVIND INGALE AND ORS.
                                        v.
                   RAV ANA GOUDA BHIMANGOUDA PATIL

                             NOVEMBER I8, 1996

B               [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

         Specific Relief Act, 1963:

         Suit for specific pe1jorma11ce-Appellants' mother obtained loan from
  father of respondent-She executed a sale deed of the suit land with
C agreement ofreconveyance-Sale deed was got executed in the name ofthe
  minor-Purchaser failed to execute the deed ofreconveyance after receiving
  the money back-Suit for specific performance-Trial Court decreed the
  suit-Appellate Court dismissed the suit-High Court held that agreement
   was not entered into with the leave of the Court and since the agreement of


                                                                                 -
D reconveyance was not for the benefit of the minor, decree for specific
  performance could not be granted-Held, when thefather ofthe respondent
   had obtained the sale deed in the name of the minor, he is bound by the
   agreement of reconveyance as well-Appellants are entitled to seek the
   specific performance-Decree oftrial court restored-Judgments and orders
   of appellate court and High Court set aside-Doctrine of /is pendens-
E Suit for specific performance ofagreement ofreconveyance-Suit land sold
   by purchaser pending/itigation-Held any subsequent sale would be barred
   by doctrine of /is pendens-Subsequent purchaser is bound by decree of
   specific performance and liable to convey the property to decree-holder.

F           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. I5097 of
    1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 6. I .92 of the Karnataka High
    Court in S.A. No. 933 of 1978.

G           Ms. Rajni, K. Prasad and K.R. Nagaraja for the Appellants.

          Manoj Arora, Ms. Nandini Mukherjee, H. Wahi and P.S. Narsimha
    for the Respondents/Impleading party.

H           The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                        720
                       N.G. INGALE v. R.B. PATIL                      721


     Delay condoned.                                                          A
     Substitution and impleadment allowed.

     Leave granted.

     We have heard learned counsel on both sides.                             B

     This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of
the Karnataka High Court, made on January 6, 1992 in RSA No. 933/78.

       The admitted position is that one Radhabai, mother of the appellants   C
was the owner of 4 acres 38 gunthas of land in Pascayapur Village in
Bijapur laluka and District in Karnataka State. According to her, she, with
a view to dig a well in R.S. No.299, namely, the same land, had obtained
a loan in the year 1961 from the father of the respondent a sum ofRs.1,000.
Since she was not in a position to complete the digging of the well, she
approached again for a sum of Rs. 2,000 to complete the well. The             D
respondent's father who is a Constable had advanced the money on the
condition that she would execute the sale deed in favour of his minor son
i.e., the respondent. Accordingly, she executed the sale deed with an
agreement of re-conveyance which was accordingly executed on. August
31, 1961. She stated that she has paid from time to time a sum of Rs.
7,000 and she asked the respondent to execute the re-conveyance and the       E
respondent had not executed the deed ofre-conveyance, consequently, she
filed the suit for specific performance. The trial Judge decreed OS No.4/
1966 on the file of the Additional Munsif, Bijapur on April 3, 1976. On
appeal, the Additional Civil Judge allowed the appeal on November 7,
1977 and dismissed the suit. The second appeal was dismissed by the High
Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.                                    F
      The High Court found that since the agreement of re-conveyance
was not for the benefit of the minor, the decree for specific performance
cannot be granted. The leave of the court was not obtained for entering
into such an agreement and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the   G
benefit of the specific performance. We find no force in the reasoning of
the High Court in the facts and circumstances of this case. it is seen that
appellant's mother is the owner of the property. She had obtained loan
from the respondent and executed the sale deed with an agreement of re-
conveyance. When the father of the respondent had obtained the sale deed
in the name of the minor, obviously he is bound by the agreement of re-       H
    722                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11996) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A conveyance as well. Having received the money, he had not executed the
    sale deed. Necessarily, the appellants are entitled to seek the specific
    perform.ance. Under these circumstances, the question that agreement was
    not for the benefit of the miJl9r. which is a legal proposition, cannot be
1   applied to the facts. It is contended that subsequent purchaser from the
    father of the respondent of the self-same property, without knowledge of
B   the pendency of the suit is bound by the agreement. We find no force in
    the contention. The appellants have been seeking the remedy in the Civil
    Suit; any subsequent sale will be barred by the doctrine of /is pendens.
    Therefore, the subsequent purchaser is bound by this decree of specific
    performance and liable to reconvey the property to the appellants. The
    decree of the trial Judge is accordingly restored and that of the High Court
C   and the Additional Civil Judge stand set aside. The remedy of recovery of
    the purchased money from the respondent may be sought in an appropriate
    action.

          The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

D R.P.                                                        Appeal allowed.