Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao
Bondada Naga Venkata Siva Nageswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Aitha Venkata Rama Rao – Respondent
ORDER :
Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.
This application is filed under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C seeking to permit the petitioners herein/proposed respondents 5 to 8 to come on record as respondents 5 to 8 in S.A.No.276 of 2019.
2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:
(a) The 1st petitioner/proposed 5th respondent filed an affidavit in support of the present application on behalf of the petitioners 2 to 4/proposed respondents 6 to 8 also. It is pleaded that the 1st respondent/appellant knowing fully well aware that they are the bona fide purchasers and owners of the subject property, without impleading them as party respondents, filed the suit, first appeal and the present second appeal. The present application is filed seeking to implead them as respondents 5 to 8 in the above appeal as they are proper and necessary parties for proper adjudication of the lis.
(b) It is further pleaded that the mother of respondents 1 and 2 and mother-in-law and grandmother of respondents 3 and 4 is the absolute owner and possessor of G+2 RCC building constructed on 71 square yards bearing Door No.22-15-52, situated at Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. She executed a registered
A pendente lite purchaser can be added as a party to ongoing litigation to protect substantial interests, and such applications should typically be granted without prejudice.
The court emphasized that a transfer pending litigation is not void but subservient to the ongoing suit, affirming judicial discretion to allow impleadment to protect bona fide purchasers' rights.
(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 transfe....
Civil Law - Impleadment application - Pendente lite purchaser - Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act that Supreme Court has emphasized that a transferee pendente lite is not void ab initio. It only....
Lis pendens purchasers are not necessary or proper parties in a specific performance suit, as their absence does not impede the passing of an effective decree.
The court affirmed that a purchaser pendente lite is a necessary party in ongoing litigation to ensure all parties with legitimate interests are heard.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which renders any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit void. The co....
The discretion of the court to make subsequent transferee a party and the subservient nature of transfer pendente lite to the rights eventually determined by the court in pending litigation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
