Supreme Court: Though S.52 TP Act Doesn't Make Pendente Lite Transfer Void, Court Can Invalidate Such Sale Exercising Contempt Power

 Thus, although Section 52 of the Act 1882 does not render a transfer pendente lite void yet the court while exercising contempt jurisdiction may be justified to pass directions either for reversal of the transactions in question by declaring the said transactions to be void or proceed to pass appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to ensure that the contumacious conduct on the part of the contemnor does not continue to enure to the advantage of the contemnor or anyone claiming under him. {Para 180}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 158-159 of 2024.

Decided On: 13.12.2024

Celir LLP Vs. Sumati Prasad Bafna and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 978,MANU/SC/1343/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether purchaser pendente lite can be added as party in suit?

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 XXII 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 representative-in-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.

11. The law is thus settled that an alienee pendente lite would always be bound by the verdict of the Court in the suit and would always be subject to the final decree that would be passed. Such an alienee could be brought on record as a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC if it appears that his substantial interest in the suit property would depend upon the verdict in the said suit.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 11925 of 2016

Decided On: 09.06.2017

Rama and Ors. Vs. Narayan Govinda Khakal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Ghuge, J.

Citation: 2017(5) BOM CR 272

Print Page

Whether application of purchaser pendente lite for impleadment should be liberally considered?

 This Court on more than one occasion held that when a pendente lite purchaser seeks to implead himself as a party - defendant to the suit, such application should be liberally considered. This Court also held in Smt. Saila Bala Dassi v. Smt. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and Another, AIR 1958 SC 394, that, “justice requires”, a pendente lite purchaser “should be given an opportunity to protect his rights”. It was a case, where the property in dispute had been mortgaged by one of the respondents to another respondent. The mortgagee filed a suit, obtained a decree and ‘commenced proceedings for sale of the mortgaged property’. The appellant Saila Bala, who purchased the property from the judgment-debtor subsequent to the decree sought to implead herself in the execution proceedings and resist the execution. That application was opposed on various counts. This Court opined that Saila Bala was entitled (under Section 146 of the C.P.C.) to be brought on record to defend her interest because, as a purchaser pendent elite, she would be bound by the decree against her vendor. There is some divergence of opinion regarding the question, whether a pendent elite purchaser is entitled, as a matter of right, to get impleaded in the suit, this Court in (2005) 11 SCC 403, held that :

“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 endent elite 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 pendent elite to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendant is vitally interested in the litigation, where 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 pendent elite 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 pendent elite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where his predecessor-in-interest is made a party to the litigation; he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case.” [Emphasis supplied] The preponderance of opinion of this Court is that a pendente lite purchaser’s application for impleadment should normally be allowed or “considered liberally”.

Reportable

Supreme Court of India

A. Nawab John & Ors vs V. N. Subramaniyam on 3 July, 2012

Bench: P. Sathasivam, J. Chelameswar

Citation:2013(1) MHLJ 1

Print Page

Whether subsequent purchaser can be permitted to added as party in second appeal?

 Thus, pending disposal of the suit or the proceedings,
right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question;
the suit property cannot transferred or disposed of so as to affect
the   right   of   the   other   party   under   any   decree   or   order.     The
explanation   to   Section   52   of   the   Transfer   of   Property   Act   also
clarifies that  pendency of the suit  commences from  the date of
presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a
Court of competent jurisdiction and to continue until the suit or

proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and
complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been
obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of
any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any
law for the time being in force.
18.  In   my   view,   the   respondents­defendants   in   the   suit
cannot   be   allowed   to   create   a   situation   whereby   right   of   the
appellant­plaintiff   in   the   suit   is   defeated   due   to   transaction
between the alleged subsequent purchasers and the respondentsdefendants.
    The   subsequent   purchasers   claiming   under   the
respondents­defendants   may   have   their   remedy   as   against   the
respondents­defendants to claim damages for breach of agreement,
if   any,   with   the   respondents­defendants,   but   such   subsequent
purchasers   claiming   under   the   respondents­defendants   in   the
absence of privity of contract with the appellant­plaintiff are not
entitled   to   defeat   otherwise   sustainable   decree   by   seeking   to
intervene and participate at the hearing of the second appeal.  That
being so, Civil Application No.2848 of 2004 for grant of permission
to add the subsequent purchaser as respondent preferred by the

appellant must be rejected with costs. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO.218 OF 2000
Purushottam S/o Devidas Bhoyar,

             V
 Sau. Sheelabai W/o Kishor Shrungare,
    
CORAM : A. P. BHANGALE, J. 

DATED : September 10, 2015
Citation:2016(3) ALLMR105

Print Page