From the foregoing facts as stated by the
petitioner in the petition, all rights claimed by the
respondent nos. 3 and 4 over the suit property have been
allegedly transferred in favour of the petitioner. In the
background of such facts, it would be necessary to consider
whether the petitioner is entitled to be impleaded in the suit
filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Taking note of the
reliefs sought in the suit filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2, it
cannot be disputed that the relief if granted therein would
affect the right claimed by the petitioner over the suit
property. In this context, the observations of the Apex Court
in the judgment reported in (2006)9 SCC page 199 in the
case of Devendra Kumar Sarewgee and others V/s
Purbanchal Estates (P) Ltd., and others, at paras 11 and
12 would be relevant which read thus :
“11. This Court after detailed
consideration of the case-law in Raj
Kumar V/s Sardari Lal has held that the
transferee pendente lite is treated in the
eye of the law as a representative-ininterest
of the judgment-debtor and
bound by the decree passed against the
judgment-debtor. In case of an
assignment, creation or devolution of any
interest during the pendency of any suit,
Order 22 Rule 10 CPC confers a discretion
on the court hearing the suit to grant
leave to the person in or upon whom such
interest has come to vest or devolve to be:9:
brought on record. Bringing on a lis
pendens transferee on record is not as of
right but in the discretion of the court.
12. To the similar effect is the judgment
of this court in Amit Kumar Shaw V/s
Farida Khatoon. It has been observed as
follows : (SCC p. 411)
“The doctrine of lis pendens applies
only where the lis is pending before a
Court. Further pending the suit, the
transferee is not entitled as of right to be
made a party to the suit, though the
Court has a discretion to make him a
party. But the transferee pendente lite
can be added as a proper party if his
interest in the subject-matter of the suit is
substantial and not just peripheral. A
transferee pendente lite to the extent he
has acquired interest from the defendant
is vitally interested in the litigation,
whether the transfer is of the entire
interest of the defendant; the latter
having no more interest in the property
may not properly defend the suit. He may
collude with the plaintiff. Hence, though
the plaintiff is under no obligation to make
a lis pendens transferee a party; under
Order 22 Rule 10 an alienee pendente lite
may be joined as party. As already
noticed, the Court has discretion in the
matter which must be judicially exercised
and an alienee would ordinarily be joined
as a party to enable him to protect his
interests. The Court has held that a
transferee pendente lite of an interest in
immovable property is a representativein-interest
of the party from whom he has
acquired that interest. He is entitled to be
impleaded in the suit or other proceedings
where the transferee pendente lite is
made a party to the litigation; he is
entitled to be heard in the matter on the
merits of the case” .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 564 OF 2007
Krishnan Venugopal,
V
Antonio Joao A. Braganza,
CORAM : F. M. REIS, J
DATE : 5th SEPTEMBER, 2012.
Citation:(2012)6 ALLMR 934: 2013(1) MHLJ435
Print Page
petitioner in the petition, all rights claimed by the
respondent nos. 3 and 4 over the suit property have been
allegedly transferred in favour of the petitioner. In the
background of such facts, it would be necessary to consider
whether the petitioner is entitled to be impleaded in the suit
filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Taking note of the
reliefs sought in the suit filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2, it
cannot be disputed that the relief if granted therein would
affect the right claimed by the petitioner over the suit
property. In this context, the observations of the Apex Court
in the judgment reported in (2006)9 SCC page 199 in the
case of Devendra Kumar Sarewgee and others V/s
Purbanchal Estates (P) Ltd., and others, at paras 11 and
12 would be relevant which read thus :
“11. This Court after detailed
consideration of the case-law in Raj
Kumar V/s Sardari Lal has held that the
transferee pendente lite is treated in the
eye of the law as a representative-ininterest
of the judgment-debtor and
bound by the decree passed against the
judgment-debtor. In case of an
assignment, creation or devolution of any
interest during the pendency of any suit,
Order 22 Rule 10 CPC confers a discretion
on the court hearing the suit to grant
leave to the person in or upon whom such
interest has come to vest or devolve to be:9:
brought on record. Bringing on a lis
pendens transferee on record is not as of
right but in the discretion of the court.
12. To the similar effect is the judgment
of this court in Amit Kumar Shaw V/s
Farida Khatoon. It has been observed as
follows : (SCC p. 411)
“The doctrine of lis pendens applies
only where the lis is pending before a
Court. Further pending the suit, the
transferee is not entitled as of right to be
made a party to the suit, though the
Court has a discretion to make him a
party. But the transferee pendente lite
can be added as a proper party if his
interest in the subject-matter of the suit is
substantial and not just peripheral. A
transferee pendente lite to the extent he
has acquired interest from the defendant
is vitally interested in the litigation,
whether the transfer is of the entire
interest of the defendant; the latter
having no more interest in the property
may not properly defend the suit. He may
collude with the plaintiff. Hence, though
the plaintiff is under no obligation to make
a lis pendens transferee a party; under
Order 22 Rule 10 an alienee pendente lite
may be joined as party. As already
noticed, the Court has discretion in the
matter which must be judicially exercised
and an alienee would ordinarily be joined
as a party to enable him to protect his
interests. The Court has held that a
transferee pendente lite of an interest in
immovable property is a representativein-interest
of the party from whom he has
acquired that interest. He is entitled to be
impleaded in the suit or other proceedings
where the transferee pendente lite is
made a party to the litigation; he is
entitled to be heard in the matter on the
merits of the case” .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 564 OF 2007
Krishnan Venugopal,
V
Antonio Joao A. Braganza,
CORAM : F. M. REIS, J
DATE : 5th SEPTEMBER, 2012.
Citation:(2012)6 ALLMR 934: 2013(1) MHLJ435
