Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 761
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Smt. Jaya Milwani And Another – Appellant
Versus
Ram Shanker And 7 Others – Respondent
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 371 of 2023 at Allahabad
Petitioner:Manish Tandon and Sr. Advocate
Respondent: Chandra Bhan Gupta and Prakhar Tandon
The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act bars property transfers during litigation to prevent undermining the court's authority.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 52 - Doctrine of lis pendens - Application for impleading subsequent purchasers rejected as it was intended to delay proceedings - The doctrine prevents transfer of property during litigation to ensure the court's process is not undermined - The trial court's decision to reject the application was upheld. (Paras 6, 9)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 and Order I Rule 10 - Application for amendment and impleadment - The application was deemed unnecessary as the original suit was for cancellation of earlier sale-deeds and did not concern the later sale-deed. (Paras 2, 5)
Facts of the case:
The original suit was filed by Ram Shanker for cancellation of sale-deeds executed in 1966 and 1967. The trial court rejected an application to add subsequent purchasers as parties, which was contested in a civil revision that was allowed.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's rejection of the application was justified as it was intended to delay proceedings, and the doctrine of lis pendens applied.
Issues: Whether the application to implead subsequent purchasers was justified and the applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the doctrine of lis pendens applies to prevent property transfers during litigation, ensuring the court's authority is maintained.
Result: Writ petition allowed; the revisional court's order set aside.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. One Ram Shanker, the predecessor of plaintiff respondent nos. 1/1 to 1/4, had filed Original Suit No. 1105 of 2004 against the respondent no. 2 and one Ram Chander, the predecessors of present petitioners, for cancellation of sale-deed executed on 6.12.1966 by Ram Shanker in favour of his father Radhe Shyam and sale-deed dated 18.7.1967. During pendency of the said suit unfortunately Ram Shanker/plaintiff and Ram Chander/defendant died leaving behind their legal heirs.
2. Defendant no. 2 in the suit of 2004 had purchased the property from one Chandramani through registered sale-deed on 15.02.1974. Admittedly, Ram Shanker became major in the year 1975 and he had instituted a suit for annulling the sale-deed executed in the years 1966 and 1967 in the year 2004. The said suit was contested by parties before the trial court and judgment was reserved on 22.1.2019 fixing 14.2.2019 for delivery of judgment. In the meantime, plaintiff had moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading the subsequent purchaser of the property and also for amending the plaint. The trial court rejected the said application by order dated 15.3.2021, against which a civil revision was preferred which was allowed by the order impugned.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that deliberately the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Order I Rule 10 CPC was moved by the plaintiff, when the judgement was reserved, to linger on the matter. According to him, the law of lis pendens will apply and trial court had rightly rejected the application.
4. Sri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 3 Chandramani Rastogi and Sri R.P. Pandey, learned counsel, for respondent no. 4 Satendra Kumar Gupta. They have defended the order passed by the revisional court and submits that deemed to be subsequent purchasers they need to be added parties in the said suit as Ram Shanker, the original owner of the property, had executed the sale-deed in the year 1966.
5. The argument raised by respondents' counsel is vehemently opposed by Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for petitioner, on the ground that in the suit filed by Ram Shanker the relief was for cancellation of sale-deed of the years 1966 and 1967 and there is no dispute as to the sale-deed of the year 2016. The application for impleading the respondent nos. 3 and 4 as a party in the suit has been made only for lingering the matter.
6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that originally one Heera was the owner in possession of the property in dispute. He had executed a registered Will in favour of his maternal grandson Ram Shanker, who had transferred the property in question in the year 1966 in the name of his father late Radhe Shyam. Radhe Shyam, thereafter, sold the property to one Chandramani in the year 1967. The suit for cancellation of both the sale-deeds of the years 1966 and 1967 was filed by Ram Shanker in the year 2004. The matter is going on for a long. As far as application under Order VI Rule 17 is concerned, the law is well settled that doctrine of lis pendens as enshrined under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act would apply. The said application has been moved at the behest of plaintiff only to linger on and drag the matter.
7. Recently, the Apex Court in case of Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Katta Sujatha Reddy and others , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3214 dealt with scope of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and held as under;
“45. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 states that during the pendency in any court of any suit in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceedings. The explanation to the provision states that for the purposes of the Sect
