U/s 52 of Transfer of property Act, there is no bar to implead transferee pendent lite as a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC; SC

Yogesh Goyanka vs. Govind & Ors.

Citation:

2024 INSC 510 Civil Appeal No(s). 7305 of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 10005 of 2022]

Court:

Supreme Court of India

Judges:

Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Key Sections:

• Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
• Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA)

Precedents:

• Bibi Zubaida Khatoon vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb & Anr. (2004) 1 SCC 191
• Thomson Press vs. Nanak Builders (2015) 5 SCC 397
• Amit Kumar Shaw vs. Farida Khatoon (2005) 11 SCC 403
• A. Nawab John vs. V.N. Subramaniyam (2012) 7 SCC 738

Background:

• The appeal arose from a High Court judgment dismissing the appellant's writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The appellant's impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, was earlier dismissed by the Additional District Judge (ADJ).
• The appellant purchased land (the Subject Land) during ongoing litigation (lis pendens) without court permission.
• The original plaintiffs (Respondent Nos. 1-17) sought to declare earlier release deeds and a sale deed void in a suit filed in 2018. The appellant, who purchased the land later, sought to be impleaded in this ongoing suit.

Issues:

1. Whether a transferee pendente lite with prior knowledge of litigation can seek impleadment in the ongoing suit.
2. Whether the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the TPA renders the sale deed void.

Arguments:

• Appellant's Counsel: Asserted the appellant's right to protect his interests in the land, citing the possibility of collusion between the plaintiffs and original defendants, who are relatives. Relied on precedents permitting impleadment of transferees pendente lite.
• Respondents' Counsel: Argued the appellant was not a bona fide purchaser due to prior knowledge of litigation and non-payment of consideration, contending the sale deed was a nullity.

Judgment:

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court and ADJ's orders. It held:
  • The doctrine of lis pendens does not render a transfer void but subservient to the court's directions.
  • Impleadment of a transferee pendente lite is permissible to protect their interests, particularly if there is a risk of collusion or the transferor fails to defend the title.
  • The appellant demonstrated potential collusion between the plaintiffs and original defendants, justifying his impleadment.
  • Disputed facts regarding consideration payment should be determined by the trial court.

Conclusion:

The appellant was directed to be added as a party-defendant in the underlying suit to protect his interests in the Subject Land. The judgment reaffirms the principles of lis pendens and discretionary impleadment of transferees in civil litigation, balancing procedural fairness with substantive rights.