Section 12 and 22 of the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Section 52 suit authorizing a pendens scope consent decree for specific performance, validating the scope agreements to sell the dispute between two common rivals (appellant and defendant). ? During the appellant's trial for specific performance of both vendors filing claims for the specific performance of their respective contracts in relation to the same property, the seller subsequently compromised with the respondent. I consent to the consent of the plaintiff \ s lawyer despite the legality of the appellant's case, the sale was processed and registered in the case, though the appellant was not a party to the lawsuit filed by the defendant. But it was not established that the defendant was aware. The seller's contract between the appellant and the seller or the appellant was not deliberately arranged because the party suit filed by the defendant meant that there was a compromise between the respondent and the seller, in which the shopkeeper made it clear And unconditionally accepted the sale agreement between it and the respondents, acknowledged that the decree for sale of such consent was also implemented and registered in favor of the respondents. ? If it was believed that the defendant was aware of the suit filed by the appellant for specific performance, no cross-examination was made on the defendant's statement that he had not entered any written statement in this regard or in this case. I haven't been served it. On the record to suggest this
