Case Note & Summary
The case involves appeals by the original plaintiffs (H. Anjanappa & Ors.) against an order of the Karnataka High Court condoning a delay of 586 days and granting leave to appeal to subsequent purchasers (A. Prabhakar & Ors. and Beena Anthony & Ors.) in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The suit property, owned by Late Smt. Daisy Shanthappa, was agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs in 1995 for Rs.20,00,000, with Rs.15,00,000 paid. During the subsistence of the agreement, the owner executed a sale deed in favor of Defendant No.3 (subsequent purchaser) in 2003. The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance in 2003, and the Trial Court granted a temporary injunction restraining alienation. Despite the injunction, Defendant No.3 sold portions of the property to Respondent Nos.1-2 in 2004. The purchasers filed an impleadment application in 2007, which was rejected in 2014 on the ground that the purchase was in contravention of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the injunction order. The rejection was not challenged. The Trial Court decreed the suit in 2016, ordering specific performance. Defendant No.3's appeal was dismissed in 2017. Thereafter, in 2018, the subsequent purchasers filed an appeal with a delay of 586 days, along with applications for condonation of delay and leave to appeal. The High Court allowed both applications. The Supreme Court, in the present appeals, examined whether the High Court was justified. The appellants argued that the delay was unexplained and the purchasers were not bona fide, having purchased pendente lite and in violation of injunction. The respondents contended that the suit was collusive and they had a substantial interest. The Supreme Court held that the delay was inordinate and unexplained, the purchasers were not parties to the suit and their impleadment rejection had attained finality, and the purchase was hit by lis pendens. The Court set aside the High Court's order, dismissed the applications for condonation and leave to appeal, and restored the decree of the Trial Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 Limitation Act, 1963 - Unexplained Delay - The High Court condoned a delay of 586 days in filing the appeal by subsequent purchasers who had purchased the property pendente lite. The Supreme Court held that the delay was inordinate and unexplained, and the High Court erred in condoning it without sufficient cause. (Paras 3-5, 10) B) Transfer of Property Act - Lis Pendens - Section 52 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Pendente Lite Purchase - The subsequent purchasers purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit and in contravention of a specific order of injunction. The Supreme Court held that such purchase is hit by Section 52 and the purchasers cannot claim to be bona fide purchasers without notice. (Paras 7, 9) C) Civil Procedure - Impleadment - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Rejection of Impleadment - The subsequent purchasers' application for impleadment was rejected by the Trial Court and the order was not challenged, thus attaining finality. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not grant leave to appeal to them as they were not parties to the suit and the rejection order had become final. (Paras 6-7) D) Civil Procedure - Leave to Appeal - Right of Appeal - The subsequent purchasers, not being parties to the suit and having failed to challenge the rejection of impleadment, had no right to appeal against the decree. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting leave to appeal. (Paras 6-7, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in condoning an unexplained delay of 586 days and granting leave to appeal to subsequent purchasers who purchased the property pendente lite in contravention of an injunction order and whose impleadment application had been rejected and attained finality.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 16.11.2022, and dismissed I.A. Nos. 1 & 3 of 2018 filed by the respondents for condonation of delay and leave to appeal. The decree of the Trial Court dated 16.09.2016 in O.S. No.458/2006 was restored.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Leave to appeal
- Pendente lite purchaser
- Section 52 Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Impleadment application
- Finality of orders
- Bona fide purchaser
- Collusion
