What was the main legal fight in this case?

If the plaintiff could seek a declaration under Section 42 Specific Relief Act and whether the lease was hit by lis pendens under CPC s.64 and TPA s.52.

Did the Supreme Court treat the lease as protected?

No. The Court found the lease was struck by CPC s.64 since an attachment existed when the lease was executed.

Was Section 52 TPA (lis pendens) finally applied?

The Court said the case fell outside TPA s.52 because the lease rested on an earlier agreement; s.64 CPC was enough to strike it down.

Why is Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act relevant?

Because the plaintiff had a clear legal character as mortgagee and decree assignee; a declaration could clarify title against the impugned lease.

How do such leases affect auction sales?

Existing lessee rights lower the price a buyer would pay at auction, reducing what creditors can recover from the sale.

Supreme General Films Ltd. v. Maharaja Brijnath Singh

Supreme Court of India 1975 • (1975) 2 SCC 530 Bench: SC CPC • TPA • Specific Relief ~8–10 min

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • India • Published: 01 Nov 2025 • Slug: supreme-general-films-ltd-v-maharaja-brijnath-singh

Quick Summary

The Court confirmed the plaintiff’s legal character to seek a declaration (as mortgagee and decree assignee). It held that the disputed lease was hit by CPC Section 64 because an attachment already existed when the lease was made. The case was outside TPA Section 52 on lis pendens due to its basis in an earlier agreement. Result: the lease could not stand against the attachment; declaration granted accordingly.

CASE_TITLE: Supreme General Films Ltd. v. Maharaja Brijnath Singh PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: lis pendens, CPC s.64, TPA s.52 SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Specific Relief Act s.42, lease during attachment, auction purchaser, (1975) 2 SCC 530 PUBLISH_DATE: 01 Nov 2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India

```

Issues

Could the plaintiff claim a declaration under Section 42, Specific Relief Act?
Was the lease in favour of the appellant struck by lis pendens/attachment under CPC s.64 and/or TPA s.52?

Rules

Market impact rule: Existing lessee rights reduce an auction buyer’s willingness to pay, affecting creditor recovery.
CPC s.64: Private transfers of attached property are ineffective as against claims enforceable under the attachment.
TPA s.52: Lis pendens prevents parties from defeating rights during a pending suit.
SRA s.42: A person with a legal character or right to property can seek a declaration.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic for Supreme General Films v. Maharaja Brijnath Singh

Suit at Jabalpur

The Maharaja sued for a declaration that a lease over Sunder Vilas/Plaza Talkies in favour of the appellant was void against him.

Loans & Mortgage

Former owners (Bhatias) owed money; goods security fell short. On 29 Dec 1951, they mortgaged Plaza Talkies to the Maharaja.

Decrees & Attachment

Civil suit ended in a compromise allowing sale of the theatre. Central Bank’s decree rights were assigned to the Maharaja; attachment proceedings followed.

Appellant’s Claim

The company said it was lessee/tenant. It sought specific performance of an agreement to lease; a formal lease was later executed.

Lower Courts

Trial Court and High Court decreed for the plaintiff, overruling the company’s defences.

Arguments

Plaintiff (Maharaja)

As mortgagee and decree assignee, he had a legal character to seek declaration.
The lease was ineffective due to attachment; auction buyer should take the theatre free of the lease.

Appellant (Company)

Claimed status as lessee/tenant, including holding over.
Lease flowed from an earlier agreement to lease; urged protection from lis pendens rules.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the plaintiff’s right to a declaration. It ruled that the lease was struck by CPC Section 64 since an attachment existed when the lease was executed. The case did not need reliance on TPA Section 52 because the lease rested on an antecedent agreement; still, it could not defeat the attachment. The company’s claimed protections therefore failed.

Ratio

Legal character: A mortgagee and decree assignee can seek a declaratory decree (SRA s.42).
Attachment prevails: A transfer made after attachment cannot override rights under the attachment (CPC s.64).
Lis pendens scope: Where a lease stems from a prior agreement, TPA s.52 may not apply; still, CPC s.64 can nullify its effect.

Why It Matters

This case shows that attachments protect creditor recovery. Private deals made after attachment—like leases—cannot reduce the value available at auction. It also clarifies how declaratory relief helps clean title for sale.

Key Takeaways

Attachment first; private transfers later = ineffective against attachment.
Declaratory suits can secure a clear sale for creditors and buyers.
Not every dispute needs TPA s.52; CPC s.64 may decide it.
Leases during litigation can lower auction price and harm creditors.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: ATTACH → AFFECT → AVOID

Attach: Property is attached by court process.
Affect: Later lease affects sale price and creditor rights.
Avoid: CPC s.64 avoids the lease as against the attachment.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is the plaintiff entitled to a declaration, and is the lease defeated by attachment/lis pendens?

Rule

SRA s.42; CPC s.64 on attachment; TPA s.52 on lis pendens; effect on auction value.

Application

Lease came after attachment; despite prior agreement, it could not override attachment rights; declaration proper.

Conclusion

Lease ineffective against the attachment; plaintiff’s declaration sustained.

Glossary

Attachment: Court seizure/control of property so it is available to satisfy a decree.
Lis Pendens: Rule that a pending suit prevents parties from changing rights to defeat the court’s eventual decision.
Declaratory Decree: A court’s formal statement of legal status or rights, without ordering further relief.