The case—Raju Naidu vs. Chenmouga Sundra & Ors. [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 331]—revolved around two parcels of property referred to as ‘Schedule A’ and ‘Schedule B’. The appellant claimed rights over part of the property based on an agreement to sell executed with the respondents' father. But here's the catch: when he signed that agreement, he already knew that a civil case was pending over the property’s ownership.

In this case, the Appellant entered into a sale agreement with the father of Respondent Nos. 1 to 8, even while a civil suit was already pending regarding the same property ('Schedule B'). The respondents had challenged the validity of a Will executed in favor of Respondent No. 9.

Despite the appellant being in possession based on the agreement, **the Trial Court and Appellate Court ruled in favor of the respondents**, directing the delivery of possession. The Executing Court further allowed the respondents three months to refund ₹40,000 (advance paid by the appellant) and proceed with the execution of the decree.

The appellant approached the High Court, invoking Section 53A of the TPA for protection and objecting to the timeline extension granted by the Executing Court.

The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal, made it clear that you cannot take shelter under Section 53A if you stepped into the agreement with open eyes, fully aware that someone else had already challenged the title in court.

The Court echoed the principle of lis pendens—a legal doctrine that says you can’t acquire better rights over a property if it’s already subject to litigation. This principle ensures that third parties do not interfere with the rights of those who have obtained a decree through due process.

Quoting from the judgment: 

“Limited rights of a transferee during pendency of a suit cannot obstruct or override a decree obtained through lawful process.”

The respondents' father had executed a Will in favor of one of the family members, which the other heirs contested in a suit. While this was going on, the appellant—fully aware of the case—entered into a sale agreement with the same man. Eventually, the trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, and the appellate court upheld that ruling.

To settle the matter, the executing court allowed the respondents three months to refund the ₹40,000 advance paid by the appellant. After the amount was deposited, the court ordered the appellant to give up possession.

Still, the appellant took the matter to the High Court, insisting that the executing court had overstepped its powers by allowing time for the refund. He also claimed protection under Section 53A, saying he was in possession of the property based on the sale agreement.

But the High Court—and later the Supreme Court—disagreed.

This decision serves as a reminder that possessing a property doesn’t automatically give you legal protection, especially if your claim is based on an agreement signed during an ongoing court dispute.

Many buyers, unfortunately, don't investigate the legal history of a property before signing papers. This judgment underscores how crucial it is to conduct due diligence. If there’s a pending suit involving the property, you may be stepping into legal quicksand—and no part performance protection will pull you out.

As a lawyer dealing regularly with property disputes and cheque bounce matters, I see firsthand how easily buyers can find themselves in trouble because of legal shortcuts or lack of awareness.

If you're planning to enter into an agreement for any property, always consult a legal professional to review the background, especially if there's a chance of any pending litigation. In the long run, it will save your time, money, and years of courtroom battles.

Need Help With a Property Dispute?  

Whether you’re dealing with a pending suit, execution of decree, or want to verify a property's title before purchase, we can guide you with practical, experienced legal advice.

 Available at Rohini Court, Tis Hazari Court, Saket Court, Delhi 

📞 Contact Advocate Akanksha Roy: +91- 8969602599

🌐 (https://www.advocate-delhi.com)