Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a property. The original plaintiffs (appellants) filed Suit No.1241 of 2007 seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 20th March 2006. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendants (respondents 1-4) transferred the suit property to respondent No.5 (subsequent purchaser) on 30th April 2007. The plaintiffs filed Chamber Summons No.2087 of 2011 seeking leave to implead the subsequent purchaser and to amend the plaint to incorporate the fact of transfer and seek consequential reliefs. The trial court declined the application on the ground that the transfer was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and therefore the subsequent purchaser was not a necessary party. The plaintiffs appealed. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that a transfer pendente lite is not void but only subject to the result of the litigation. The subsequent purchaser is a necessary and proper party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as his presence is required for effective adjudication. The court also allowed the amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to bring on record subsequent events. The court set aside the trial court's order and allowed the Chamber Summons, directing the impleadment of the subsequent purchaser and permitting the plaintiffs to amend the plaint. The court also disposed of the pending Notice of Motion for interim relief, directing the subsequent purchaser to maintain status quo regarding possession and not to create third-party rights.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Subsequent Purchaser - Necessary and Proper Party - Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that a subsequent purchaser of suit property is a necessary and proper party to a suit for specific performance of contract, as his presence is required for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute. The court allowed the application for impleadment, setting aside the trial court's order declining leave. (Paras 1-35) B) Transfer of Property - Lis Pendens - Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The court clarified that transfer of property pendente lite is not void but only subject to the result of the litigation. The doctrine of lis pendens does not render the transfer void ab initio, and the transferee is entitled to be heard before any decree is passed affecting his rights. (Paras 20-25) C) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Subsequent Events - Order 6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that amendment of plaint to bring on record the fact of subsequent purchase and to add consequential reliefs is necessary for determining the real question in controversy. Such amendment should be allowed even if there is delay, provided no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. (Paras 26-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants (original plaintiffs) should be granted leave to implead the subsequent purchaser of the suit property and to amend the plaint accordingly, and whether the subsequent purchaser is a necessary and proper party to the suit for specific performance.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The order dated 28 October 2013 is set aside. Chamber Summons No.2087 of 2011 is allowed. The appellants are permitted to implead the subsequent purchaser (respondent No.5) as a party defendant and to amend the plaint in terms of the draft amendment. Notice of Motion No.2308 of 2007 is disposed of with a direction to the subsequent purchaser to maintain status quo regarding possession and not to create any third-party rights. Notice of Motion No.537 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.
Law Points
- Transfer of property pendente lite is not void but subject to result of litigation
- Doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act does not render transfer void
- Subsequent purchaser is a necessary and proper party for effective and complete adjudication
- Amendment of plaint to implead subsequent purchaser should be allowed even after delay if no prejudice caused
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allows impleadment of necessary parties
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC allows amendment of pleadings to bring on record subsequent events
