Madhya Pradesh High Court
Godec Construction Private Limited ... vs Smt Kiran Goyal on 14 October, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26075
1 MCC-2511-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 2511 of 2024
GODEC CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH
MANAGING DIRECTOR SHIV SHANKAR GOYAL
Versus
SMT KIRAN GOYAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anand V. Bhardwaj - Advocate for applicant.
None for respondents.
ORDER
This application under Order 39 rule 2-A of CPC has been filed
complaining the breach of temporary injunction order dated 18/3/2019
passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 2178/2018.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that a civil suit was filed by
applicant for specific performance of contract. The civil suit was registered
as RCS No. 500011-A/2013, and by judgment and decree dated 4/9/2018, the
civil suit was dismissed and it was directed that the legal representatives of
defendant No. 1, i.e., defendants No. 1 to 8 shall pay Rupees 10 lakh to the
plaintiff jointly or severally and shall also pay interest at the rate of 7.5%
from the date of agreement till the actual payment is made.
3. Being aggrieved by said judgment and decree passed by the trial
court, applicant/plaintiff has filed First Appeal No. 2178/2018, and on
18/3/2019, it was directed that "Meanwhile, as an interim measure, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26075
2 MCC-2511-2024
directed that parties to the suit shall be subject to the provision of Section 52
of Transfer of Property Act and in case any alienation is made by the
respondents of the suit property, then the instrument of alienation shall
contain mention of pendency of this appeal."
4. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that respondents have
alienated the property but have given a false declaration that neither any case
is pending in respect of the property in dispute nor there is any stay. Thus, it
is submitted that the false declaration made in the sale deed dated 2/7/2024,
executed by Kiran Goyal, Vikram Goyal, and Shubham Goyal in favor of
Lavdhi Buildcon Private Limited, is in violation of the interim order passed
by this Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for applicant.
6. Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act provides that no third-party
right shall be created during the pendency of the suit except with the leave of
the court. It is well-established principle of law that if any sale deed has been
executed during the pendency of suit, then the same would not be a void or
invalid sale deed but the only repercussion would be that the buyer would be
bound by the decree which may be passed either in favor or against the
vendor. In the present case, there was no stay on the sale of property, but it
was made clear that the sale shall be subject to the provisions of Section 52
of Transfer of Property Act. Thus, it is clear that the purchaser would be
governed by the provisions of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, and in
case if the decree is passed against the seller, then he would be bound by the
same.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26075
3 MCC-2511-2024
7. In order to protect the interest of the purchaser, it was observed by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court that the sale deed shall contain a specific
declaration that the present appeal is pending. However, the sale deed in
question contains a contrary declaration. It is for the buyer to claim that since
the sale deed has been executed by keeping him in dark, therefore, the sale
deed should be declared as non-est. Admittedly, the buyer has not filed any
application for declaration of sale deed as invalid on the ground that it has
been obtained by playing fraud on him.
8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that
it is true that the sale deed in question contains a false declaration to the
effect that no case is pending, and there is no stay, but in view of Section 52
of Transfer of Property Act, and in absence of any specific stay on the
execution of the sale deed, this Court is unable to hold that the sale deed in
question would be non-est.
9. Under these circumstances, when the sale deed cannot be declared
as non-est, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with
this case. However, a liberty is granted to the purchaser to seek declaration of
the sale deed as non-est having been executed in violation of the interim
order dated 18/3/2019 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court.
10. With aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AKS
