Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a suit for specific performance of a contract filed by the appellant against Rajeshwari Devi. The appellant sought a decree for specific performance of agreements dated 25.12.1986 and 27.12.1990, along with a declaration that the defendant had no right to execute sale deeds in favor of others. During the suit, the appellant obtained a temporary injunction, but subsequent transfers of the property by the defendants led to the respondents seeking impleadment in the suit. The trial court rejected their application, citing that the respondents had purchased the property after the suit was filed without court permission, thus violating Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The respondents appealed to the High Court, which allowed their application, stating that their vendors were not parties to the suit and their interests were not represented. The appellant contended that the High Court overlooked the implications of Section 52. The Supreme Court analyzed the legal principles surrounding lis pendens and the necessity of court permission for transfers during litigation. It concluded that the respondents, as transferees pendente lite, could not be impleaded without leave of the court, and thus set aside the High Court's order. The court emphasized that the principle of lis pendens serves public policy and protects the rights of parties in litigation. The appeal was allowed without costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Parties - Transferees Pendente Lite - Respondents cannot be impleaded as they acquired interest in property during pendency of the suit without court's leave - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order I Rule 10 - The court held that the respondents, having purchased the property after the suit was filed, could not seek impleadment as their interest was not represented in the suit, thus their application was rejected. (Paras 1-4). B) Property Law - Doctrine of Lis Pendens - Transfers made during pendency of litigation are void unless sanctioned by the court - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 52 - The court reiterated that any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit without court permission is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, and thus the respondents could not be considered necessary parties. (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents, as transferees pendente lite, could be impleaded in the suit for specific performance without leave of the court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order allowing impleadment of the respondents in the suit, emphasizing that the respondents, as transferees pendente lite, could not seek to be added as parties without the court's permission.
Law Points
- Impleadment
- lis pendens
- specific performance
- Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
