Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 244

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
H. Anjanappa & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
A. Prabhakar & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1180-1181 Of 2025 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 5785-5786 Of 2023)
With
H. Anjanappa & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Beena Anthony & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1182-1183 Of 2025 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 6724-6725 of 2023)
Decided On : 29-01-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. For M/s.Nuli & Nuli, AOR Mr. Agam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharam Singh, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Nanda Kumar K B, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Akash Kukreja, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR Mr. Prashanth Kumar D, Adv. Mr. Abheet Mangleek, Adv. Mr. Tushar Nair, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Anand, Adv. Mr. Punishk Handa, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appeal – Locus Standi – A stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies court that he falls within category of aggrieved persons.
(2) Impleadment of transferee pendente lite – Rejection of application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC is per se not a ground to reject application for leave to file appeal – A transfer pendente lite is not illegal ipso jure but remains subservient to pending litigation.

Headnote:
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sections 96 and 100 – Appeal – Locus Standi – A stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies court that he falls within category of aggrieved persons – It is only where a Judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not a party to proceedings, he can prefer appeal with leave of appellate court – Expression ‘person aggrieved’ does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury – A person aggrieved must necessarily be one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized. (Paras 25, 27, 35 and 43)
(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order I Rule 10 and Order XXI Rule 16 and Order XXII Rule 10 read with Section 146 – Impleadment of transferee pendente lite – Appeal against decree for specific performance – Rejection of application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC is per se not a ground to reject application for leave to file appeal – Appellate court has to see whether transferee pendente lite is aggrieved by a decree or is otherwise prejudicially affected by it – Appellate court has to examine that if decree is allowed to stand, same will operate res judicata – A transfer pendente lite is not illegal ipso jure but remains subservient to pending litigation – A lis pendens transferee from defendant, though not arrayed as a party in suit, is still a person claiming under defendant – Transferee may apply for execution of decree of Court and decree will be available for execution in same manner and subject to same conditions as if application were made by decree-holder – Decree passed against defendant is available for execution against transferee or assignee of the defendant-judgment-debtor and it does not make any difference whether such transfer or assignment has taken place after passing of decree or before passing of decree without notice or leave of Court – A person having acquired interest in suit property during pendency of suit and seeking to be brought on record at stage of appeal can do so by reference to Section 146 of CPC which provision being a beneficent provision should be construed liberally and so as to advance justice and not in a restricted or technical sense – A lis pendens transferee though not brought on record under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, is entitled to seek leave to appeal against final decree passed against this transferor, defendant in suit – However, whether to grant such leave or not is within discretion of court and such discretion should be exercised judiciously in facts and circumstances of each case. (Paras 42, 43, 46, 50, 51, 52 and 56)
Facts of the case:
High Court granted leave to appeal to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein (subsequent purchasers) against original judgment and decree of specific performance as they were not parties in suit proceedings. Only question that falls for consideration is whether High Court committed any error in passing impugned order.
Findings of Court:
If Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 feel that they have been duped or cheated by Respondent No. 7/Defendant No. 3, then it shall be open for them to avail appropriate legal remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with law for the purpose of recovery of the amount towards sale consideration paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.
Result : Appeals allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Yes, the ratio is applicable to a transferee of the plaintiff (decree-holder) seeking to enforce the decree, subject to the statutory framework discussed.

Key Principles from the Judgment Applicable to Transferee of Plaintiff:

Person Claiming Under the Decree-Holder: A transferee pendente lite or post-decree from the plaintiff/decree-holder qualifies as a "person claiming under" the original party under Section 146 CPC. Proceedings (including execution) may be taken by or against such a person. (!) (!)
Execution Rights Under Order XXI Rule 16 CPC: The decree is available for execution by the transferee of the plaintiff-decree-holder in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if the application were made by the original decree-holder. This applies regardless of whether the transfer occurred before or after the decree, with or without notice. (!) (!)
Representative Capacity and Liberal Construction: Section 146 CPC is a beneficent provision to be construed liberally to advance justice, allowing the transferee to step into the shoes of the decree-holder for enforcement purposes, akin to how a lis pendens transferee from the defendant is bound by the decree. (!) (!)
Subservience to Litigation Outcome: Transfers (including to/from plaintiff) pendente lite are subservient to the decree under Section 52 TPA, enabling the decree-holder's transferee to enforce it without the transfer being ipso jure invalid. (!) (!) (!)

Distinctions from Defendant's Transferee:

While the core ratio addresses locus standi for a defendant's lis pendens transferee to seek leave to appeal (requiring proof of prejudice, judicial discretion, and no automatic right), (!) (!) (!) (!) the plaintiff's transferee faces no such barrier for enforcement, as Order XXI Rule 16 provides a direct mechanism. (!)
No need for impleadment/leave in trial or appeal stages for enforcement; execution application suffices. (!)

Practical Application:

The transferee must demonstrate the assignment/transfer and may apply directly for execution. (!)
Courts exercise discretion judiciously, but the principles favor enforcement to protect the transferee's interest derived from the decree-holder. (!) (!)

This aligns with the judgment's emphasis on equitable treatment for those "claiming under" parties, ensuring the decree's efficacy. (!) (!) (!) (!)

JUDGMENT :

(J.B. Pardiwala, J.)

1. Leave granted.

2. Since the issues raised in the above captioned appeals are the same, the parties are also same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. The appeals arise from the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 16.11.2022 in I.A. Nos. 1 & 3 of 2018 respectively in Regular First Appeal No. 1303 of 2018 by which the High Court allowed the said I.A. Nos. 1 & 3 of 2018 respectively filed by the respondents herein and thereby condoned the delay of 586 days in filing the said appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli in Original Suit No. 458 of 2006 instituted for specific performance of contract. By the order passed in I.A. Nos 1 & 3 of 2018 respectively, the High Court granted leave to appeal to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein (subsequent purchasers) against the original judgment and decree of specific performance as they were not parties in the suit proceedings.

4. The facts giving rise to these appeals may be summarised as under. The description of the parties before this Court and before the Trial Court is tabulated as follows:

BEFORE THIS COURT	BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT	REMARKS
Appellants	Plaintiffs	Agreement of Sale Holders/Purchasers
Respondent Nos. 1-2	Not a party as their impleadment application was rejected. Order remained unchallenged and hence, attained finality	Lis Pendens Purchasers (Alleged to have purchased from Subsequent Purchaser)
Respondent Nos. 3-5	LRs. Of Original Defendant No. 1	Original Owner
Respondent No. 6	Defendant No. 2	GPA Holder
Respondent No. 7	Defendant No. 3	Subsequent Purchaser

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Trial Court.

(I) One Late Smt. Daisy Shanthappa – Original Defendant No.1 (since deceased represented through her LRs-Respondents Nos. 3-5 herein) was the absolute owner of lands bearing Sy. No. 176/42 measuring 32 acres and Sy. No. 176/43 measuring 10 acres, situated adjacent to each other in Bagalur Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The Suit Schedule Property was agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs, the appellants herein, vide an Agreement of Sale dated 05.09.1995 for a total sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- by the Defendant No.1 through her Power of Attorney holder one Shri V. Chandramohan (Original Defendant No. 2/ Respondent No.6 herein). Earnest money of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid and the Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 undertook to get the unauthorized occupants in the Suit Schedule Property evicted.

(II) Since the unauthorized occupants on the Suit Schedule Property were not evicted by the Defendant Nos.1 & 2, a Supplementary Agreement dated 10.03.1997 was executed extending the time for execution of Sale Deed. Out of the entire sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- a substantial amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid by the appellants herein to the Defendant No. 1.

(III) While such being the case, and during the subsistence of Sale Agreement in favour of the Plaintiffs, the Defendant No.1 having lost her right over the suit schedule property in pursuance of the general power of attorney executed in favour of Defendant No.2, which has been acted upon, allegedly executed a Sale Deed in favour of Respondent No. 7/Defendant No. 3 selling land to an extent of 40 acres out of 42 acres for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-. The plaintiffs became aware of the aforementioned sale transfer, when the Defendant No.3 attempted to change the revenue records in his name.

(IV) Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed O.S. No.1093/2003 (later renumbered as O.S. No.458/2006) before the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Bengaluru