HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sameer Jain, J.
Yogesh Goyanka – Appellant
Versus
Govind & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 17887/2019
Decided On : 07-01-2022
Impleadment - Land Dispute - Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act - [Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act] - The court discussed the application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which states that any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit is void. The court emphasized that the sale deed executed during the pendency of the dispute was hit by the doctrine of Us pendens under Section 52, making the transaction null and void. The court also highlighted that the subsequent purchaser's application for impleading as a necessary and proper party was not tenable under the circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and other applicants purchased a land in Hindaun Town, but later discovered a pending suit for cancellation of the sale deed. The petitioner filed an application for impleadment, which was rejected, leading to the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deed executed during the pendency of the dispute was hit by the doctrine of Us pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, making the transaction null and void. The court also concluded that the petitioner's claim of being a bonafide purchaser was not tenable, as the sale deed reflected the pendency of the dispute at the time of execution.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the validity of the sale deed executed during the pendency of the dispute. The court also considered the bonafide nature of the petitioner's purchase and the rejection of the impleadment application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was primarily based on the application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which rendered the sale deed executed during the pendency of the dispute null and void. The court emphasized that the subsequent purchaser's application for impleading as a necessary and proper party was not tenable under the circumstances.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the rejection of the impleadment application, citing the application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the nullity of the sale deed executed during the pendency of the dispute.
JUDGMENT
1. Instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the impugned order dated 10/10/2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Hindaun City (Karauli) Rajasthan whereby the application filed by the petitioner and other applicants for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioner are that the petitioner alongwith performa-respondents purchased a land in Hindaun Town vide registered sale deed dated 28/09/2018 from one smt. Rajani Upadhaya, resident of 1/16, Janakpuri Tundala Road, District Firozabad (U.P.). The aforesaid land was in the name of Smt. Rajani Upadhaya as per the revenue records and she was having possession over the land and possession of the same was peacefully handed over to the petitioner and the performa respondents at the time of execution of sale deeds.
3. It is case of the petitioner that he was never informed about pendency of suit for cancellation of sale deed which was executed in favour of Smt. Rajani Upadhaya vide registered sale deeds dated 31/01/2007 and 26/04/2007. As stated by the petitioner, when he purchased the land on 28/09/2018, there was no stay operational and no injunction operating against transfer of the said land and therefore, while the title was legally searched, no information regarding any kind of legal hurdle was found. It was only on 13/02/2019 that the petitioner came to know regarding interim order and the matter being sub-judice before the learned trial court and immediately he filed an application under Order 1Rule 10 CPC for impleadment being a bonafide purchaser. The said application was duly replied by the opposite side and after consideration of the same, vide order impugned dated 10/10/2019, the application for impleadment was rejected. Hence, the present writ petition.
4. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser as the sale deed was executed after payment of appropriate stamp duty and getting the same registered. Thereafter, in the revenue records, appropriate entry of amendment in his name is duly recorded as a Khatedar. The respondent no.4, who has sold the said property under the sale deed dated 28/09/2018, is living in U.P. and is not taking any interest in the litigation and therefore, in the interest of justice, as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and as per his application, his application for impleadment should be allowed. In support of his claim, he has relied upon one judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2013(5) SCC 397 titled as Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited & Ors., more specifically Para 55 which reads as under:-
"55. We are not on virgin ground in so far as that question is concerned. Decisions of this Court have dealt with similar situations and held that a transferee pendente lite can be added as a party to the suit lest the transferee suffered prejudice on account of the transferor losing interest in the litigation post transfer. In Khemchand Shanker Choudhary v. Vishnu Hari Patil (1983) 1 SCC 18, this Court held that
"6......the position of a person on whom any interest has devolved on account of a transfer during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding is somewhat similar to the position of an heir or a legatee of a party who dies during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding."
Any such heir, legatee or transferee cannot be turned away when she applies for being added as a party to the suit. The following passage in this regard is apposite:
6...Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act no doubt lays down that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in an immovable property which is the subject matter of a suit from any of the parties to the suit will be bound in so far as that interest is concerned by the proceedings in the suit. Such a transferee is a representative in interest of the party from whom he has acquired
Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited & Ors.
Khemchand Shanker Choudhary vs. Vishnu Hari Patil (1983) 1 SCC 18
Sarvinder Singh Vs. Dalip Singh & Ors.: (1996) 5 SCC 539
Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs. Kiran Kant Robinson & Ors.: (2020) 13 SCC 773
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....
(1) Impleadment of transferee pendente lite as party-defendant in suit – Doctrine of lis pendens as provided under Section 52 of Act does not render all transfers pendente lite to be void ab-initio –....
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.
A transferee pendente lite is entitled to be impleaded in specific performance suits to protect their interests, validating the need for comprehensive adjudication of rights over the property.
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.
A subsequent transferee with a registered sale deed must be allowed to protect her interests in ongoing litigation, demonstrating both necessity and direct interest in the subject matter.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.