Case Note & Summary
The litigation originates from a property dispute between the widows of Girdhari Lal. The original plaintiff Bhagwan Dai filed a suit claiming exclusive ownership of certain property and a half share in another. After her death, the appellant Sanjiv Kumar claimed as her adopted son. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the adoption was not proved and that the Will of Girdhari Lal in favor of the second widow’s son was valid. The first appellate court partly reversed, recognizing the appellant as the validly adopted son and declaring him owner of a specific portion under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, while restraining the respondents from alienating that particular portion. The respondents preferred a second appeal in 1990, and the appellant filed cross-objections seeking a decree for the entire suit property. During the pendency of the second appeal, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 purchased a part of the property from Respondent No. 1 through a registered sale deed dated 28.06.1990. Their initial application for impleadment was dismissed in 2000 on the ground that they purchased in defiance of an injunction and that the principle of lis pendens applied. The second appeal and cross-objections were dismissed for non-prosecution in 2018. While the appellant got the cross-objections restored in 2019, the main appeal was not restored by the original appellants despite requests. The subsequent purchasers then moved fresh applications for impleadment, condonation of a 2109-day delay, and restoration of the main appeal. The High Court initially ordered the applications to be heard with the main appeal, but later, on the appellant’s request, heard the applications first. By the impugned order dated 13.11.2024, the High Court allowed all applications, holding that the earlier dismissal of the impleadment application was based on a factual misconception since the property sold was not under any injunction. It condoned the delay, restored the appeal, and impleaded the subsequent purchasers as assignees under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, while noting that their rights remain subject to the principle of lis pendens. The High Court further held that res judicata does not apply to erroneous interlocutory orders, relying on Allahabad Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court, which granted leave and proceeded to examine the matter on merits. At the cut-off point of the provided judgment text, the Supreme Court was recording the High Court’s directions and had not yet delivered its final verdict.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Subsequent Purchasers - Assignment of Interest During Pendency of Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 - The High Court allowed the applications of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who purchased part of the suit property during pendency of the second appeal, holding that they were assignees and necessary parties. It clarified that an earlier order dismissing a similar impleadment application was passed under a misconception of fact, as the property sold was not under any injunction. Held that the assignees must be impleaded to protect their interest, subject to the doctrine of lis pendens (Paras 9, 14-15). B) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 - The High Court condoned a delay of 2109 days in filing the restoration application, accepting the explanation that the subsequent purchasers were unaware of the dismissal due to non-prosecution and that their interest as assignees would be jeopardized. Held that refusal to condone would lead to miscarriage of justice (Paras 2, 3, 10). C) Civil Procedure - Restoration of Appeal Dismissed for Default - Default by Original Appellant - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XLI Rule 19 - The second appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution; the original appellant failed to seek restoration. The High Court allowed restoration at the instance of the subsequent purchasers who were assignees, holding that they had a substantial interest and that the appeal should be heard on merits. Held that restoration is necessary to avoid collusion and decide the property rights completely (Paras 10, 13). D) Res Judicata - Interlocutory Orders - Erroneous Decision Does Not Operate as Res Judicata - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 11 - The High Court held that an earlier order dismissing an impleadment application would not operate as res judicata because it was based on a mistaken belief that the property sold was under injunction, which fact was admitted to be incorrect. Reliance placed on Allahabad Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman. Held that an erroneous interlocutory order can be corrected and does not bar a fresh adjudication (Para 16). E) Property Law - Lis Pendens - Transfer Pendente Lite - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 52 - The High Court observed that the sale to subsequent purchasers is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, but since there was no injunction on the transferred property, the purchasers’ rights are subject to the outcome of the appeal. Held that impleadment was justified to protect their interest without affecting the principle of lis pendens (Paras 9, 14-15). F) Hindu Law - Women's Estate - Absolute Ownership - Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 14(1) - The First Appellate Court held that the original plaintiff became full owner of a portion of the property in her possession in lieu of maintenance, relying on Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This finding was challenged in the second appeal. Held that the substantive rights of the plaintiff appellant could not be determined in the interim order, but the matter was remitted for final hearing (Paras 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in condoning a delay of 2109 days, restoring the second appeal, and impleading subsequent purchasers as assignees despite the principle of lis pendens and the earlier dismissal of a similar impleadment application
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- principle of lis pendens
- res judicata in interlocutory applications
- condonation of delay under Section 5 Limitation Act
- restoration of appeal under Order XLI Rule 19 CPC
- impleadment of assignees under Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC
- interpretation of women's property rights under Section 14(1) Hindu Succession Act
