T. Ravi & Anr. v. B. Chinna Narasimha & Ors. Etc.
Background
The dispute concerned "matruka" (ancestral) family property of one Late Mohd. Nawab Jung, who died in 1935, over which a partition suit had been pending in Hyderabad courts since 1935. While that partition suit was still pending (undecided), one of the co-sharer defendants sold a large parcel of the joint family land (68 acres) to a third party, Bala Mallaiah, in 1959. A preliminary decree fixing everyone's shares was passed in 1970 and became final in 1976, but the final decree dividing the actual land was only passed in 2005: by which point the land had changed hands multiple times and the purchasers' successors had separately tried, and lost, several other cases (a tenancy claim, a land-grabbing complaint, and a title suit) seeking to hold onto the land. The High Court, in second appeal, had sided with the purchasers, holding the 1959 sale was not affected by the doctrine of lis pendens and that adverse possession had perfected their title, prompting the original heirs to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the sale deed of 1959 was executed while the original 1935 partition suit was still legally pending, so it was squarely covered by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, meaning the purchaser could only ever get whatever share his seller actually had, and could not defeat the rights of the other co-sharers later recognised in the final decree. The Court rejected the purchasers' claims of adverse possession, waiver, and estoppel, noting they had already lost identical arguments in several earlier, final rulings (including an earlier Supreme Court decision in a related tenancy case), and could not use the long-pending final decree proceedings to reopen settled questions. It also held mere revenue "mutation" entries recording a buyer's name do not establish ownership, which is a matter for the civil court, not a fiscal record. Finding no delay or laches on the part of the original heirs, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's final decree (with costs of Rs. 1,00,000).
Lesson Learnt
Anyone who buys land that is the subject of a pending partition or title lawsuit (even without knowing about it) takes it "subject to the result of that suit" under the doctrine of lis pendens: such a purchaser cannot later claim a better title than their seller actually had, no matter how many years pass or how many times the land changes hands afterward.