IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 – Appellant, in interest of justice, is entitled to impleadment in Underlying Suit in order to protect his interests.
(2) Impleadment of transferee pendente lite in suit – There exists no bar to impleadment of transferees pendente lite with notice.

JUDGMENT :

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises out of judgment dated 21.01.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17887 of 2019 whereby the writ petition preferred by the Appellant herein under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed (the ‘Impugned Order’). The Appellant approached the High Court on being aggrieved by the dismissal of his impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the ‘CPC’) vide order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge No. 1, Hindaun City (the ‘ADJ’).

Brief Facts:

3. The Appellant before us, along with the proforma Respondents herein purchased farming land being Khasra No. 5896, 5897, 5898, 5936 and 5895 admeasuring 2.38 hectare at Hinduan City, Rajasthan (the ‘Subject Land’) from Respondent No. 21 vide registered sale deed dated 28.09.2018 (the ‘RSD’) for a collective consideration of Rs. 1,51,65,360/-. Admittedly, the RSD contained an explicit declaration to the effect that there were cases pending in the Court of the Ld. SDM and in the court of Ld. ADJ, Hindaun City, relating to the Subject Land.

4. The Subject Land originally belonged to Respondent Nos. 1-17 (the ‘Plaintiffs’) and was released in favor of Respondent Nos. 18-20 (the ‘Defendants’) vide release deeds dated 11.08.2006 and 31.01.2007 (the ‘Release Deeds’). Thereafter, on the strength of the Release Deeds, the Subject Land was sold to Respondent No. 21 by the Defendants vide registered sale deed dated 26.04.2007 and the revenue records were mutated to reflect the name of Respondent No. 21. It is pertinent to note that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are all relatives, having a common ancestor namely, one Mr. Nathua.

5. The events giving rise to the present appeal began on 03.01.2018 when the Plaintiffs filed Suit No. 1 of 2018 in the court of the ADJ, against the Defendants and Respondent No. 21 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘Original Defendants’) seeking permanent injunction and a declaration to the effect that the Release Deeds and the sale deed dated 26.04.2007 are null and void (the ‘Underlying Suit’).

6. Admittedly, after the issuance of notice in the Underlying Suit, Respondent No. 21 entered appearance before the ADJ on 11.01.2018 and hence knowingly executed the RSD in favor of the Appellant pendente lite. Thereafter, on 25.01.2019, the ADJ granted a temporary injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs.

7. On becoming aware of the temporary injunction, the Appellant, along with the other pendente lite purchasers of the Subject Land filed an impleadment application on 13.02.2019 before the ADJ under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC. Vide order dated 10.10.2019, the application was dismissed by the ADJ holding that no need arises to implead the applicants therein as (i) permission of the Court was not sought prior to the sale; and (ii) more importantly, they were not bona fide purchasers as they were wholly cognizant of the Underlying Suit prior to their purchase. The ADJ placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Bibi Zubaida Khatoon vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb & Anr (2004) 1 SCC 191.

8. Thereafter, the Appellant alone approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the ADJ. Vide the Impugned Order, the High Court held that the impleadment application was untenable as the RSD itself was a nullity by virtue of being hit by the doctrine of lis pendens as provided under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (the ‘Act’).

Submissions & Analysis:

9. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant forcefully contended before us that the Appellant after paying the full consideration, obtained a registered sale deed in his favor and is therefore entitled to the protection of his interests in the Subject Land. He argues that impleadment of the Appellant in the Underlying Suit is necessary as there exists a real possibility o