Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against the dismissal of an impleadment application by the Rajasthan High Court. The appellant, along with others, purchased agricultural land from Respondent No. 21 via a registered sale deed dated 28.09.2018, during the pendency of a suit filed by the original owners (Plaintiffs) challenging earlier release deeds and a sale deed. The appellant had knowledge of the pending suit as disclosed in the sale deed. After the trial court granted a temporary injunction, the appellant sought impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which was rejected by the Additional District Judge on grounds that the appellant was not a bona fide purchaser and had not sought court permission. The High Court upheld this, holding the sale deed void under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (doctrine of lis pendens). The Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning erroneous, clarifying that lis pendens does not render a transfer void ab initio but only subjects the transferee's rights to the suit outcome. The Court held that impleadment of a pendente lite transferee is permissible if necessary for effective adjudication, and the matter should be reconsidered by the trial court on merits, including the question of bona fides and necessity of impleadment. The appeal was allowed, the impugned orders set aside, and the impleadment application remanded for fresh consideration.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Transferee Pendente Lite - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Doctrine of Lis Pendens - Section 52 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The court considered whether a transferee who purchased property during pendency of a suit with knowledge of the litigation can be impleaded. Held that the doctrine of lis pendens does not render the transfer void ab initio; it only makes the transferee's rights subject to the outcome of the suit. The transferee may be impleaded if his presence is necessary for effective adjudication, and the High Court erred in nullifying the sale deed based on Section 52. (Paras 16-18) B) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Pendente Lite Transferee - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Bona Fides - The court examined whether lack of bona fides or knowledge of pending suit bars impleadment. Held that while bona fides is a relevant factor, it is not an absolute bar; the court must consider whether the transferee's presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication. The trial court's rejection on grounds of lack of bona fides was not upheld as the sole basis. (Paras 17-18) C) Transfer of Property Act - Doctrine of Lis Pendens - Section 52 - Effect of Transfer Pendente Lite - The court clarified that Section 52 does not void transfers made during pendency of litigation; it only subordinates the transferee's rights to the rights of the parties to the suit. The High Court's view that the sale deed was a nullity due to lis pendens was erroneous. (Para 16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a transferee pendente lite, who had notice of the pending litigation, is entitled to be impleaded as a party in the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and the order of the trial court, and remanded the impleadment application to the trial court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, keeping all contentions open.
Law Points
- Doctrine of lis pendens does not render transfer void ab initio
- Transferee pendente lite may be impleaded if necessary for effective adjudication
- Impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is discretionary
- Bona fides of transferee is relevant but not absolute bar
