Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The rights of a transferee who is a bona fide purchaser without notice are generally protected; those with notice may face restrictions or be considered less protected ["RAJPUTANA FERTILIZERS LIMITED VS BHARAT KUMAR GUPTA - Allahabad"], ["Gur Lal Singh VS State Of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. - Allahabad"], ["Amad Noormamad Madakia VS Ghanchi Ismail Hasan Madakia - Current Civil Cases"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["RAJPUTANA FERTILIZERS LIMITED VS BHARAT KUMAR GUPTA - Allahabad"]- ["Shaukeen vs Bhure Singh - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Sarabjit Kaur vs Baljit Kaur - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Yogesh Goyanka VS Govind - 2024 5 Supreme 355"]- ["Gobardhan Ghosh vs Swadhin Pandit - Calcutta"]- ["Savitri Devi VS Civil Judge Junior Division Court No. 22 Barabanki - Allahabad"]- ["Sushila Gopal Tejale vs Babanbai Sakharam Chandramore - Bombay"]- ["Kunja Bihari Swain vs Bigneswar Swain - Orissa"]- ["Manu Sharma VS Deepak - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Shaik Shajahan VS E Jyothi - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["RAM NARESH VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DEORIA - Allahabad"]- ["Annasaheb VS Sumatilal Zumbarlal Gujarani - Bombay"]- ["M. Mamatha VS Alka Jhunjhunwala - Telangana"]- ["Sarojamma W/o Late Gangappa vs Jayamma W/o Late Byregowda - Karnataka"]- ["Gur Lal Singh VS State Of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. - Allahabad"]- ["Meena Devi, Wife of Late Kapildeo Singh vs Kailash Devi Wife of Late Bhagwat Prasad - Patna"]- ["Dushyant Kumar VS Aswani Kumar Singh - Allahabad"]- ["Kishan Kumar Bhagat @ Kishan Kumar Son of Shiv Nath Bhagat VS Ram Dayal Prasad - Patna"]- ["P. Marimuthu vs S.S. Prabhakaran - Madras"]- ["Gur Lal Singh VS State Of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. - Allahabad"]- ["Amad Noormamad Madakia VS Ghanchi Ismail Hasan Madakia - Current Civil Cases"]
Purchasing property during ongoing litigation can be a risky endeavor. What happens when you're a transferee purchaser—someone who buys property while a suit is pending—and get impleaded in the case? Do you step into the shoes of the original owner fully, or are there limitations? This is a common query in property disputes: What are the rights of a transferee purchaser after his impleadment in the suit?
In this post, we explore the legal landscape governed by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA), and provisions like Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). We'll break down key principles, court rulings, and practical insights to help you understand your position. Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Impleadment refers to adding a party to an ongoing suit under Order I Rule 10 CPC, making them a participant bound by the proceedings. A transferee pendente lite is a buyer who acquires property after the suit's institution but before its final decree.
Section 52 TPA is pivotal here: transfers made during pendency of a suit are not automatically void but are subservient to rights of the parties to such suit and remain valid subject to the result of the suit Yogesh Goyanka VS Govind - 2024 5 Supreme 355. This doctrine of lis pendens ensures the litigation's outcome binds the transferee, preventing transfers from frustrating the court's decision Bandari Laxmaiah Laxmaiah VS Chelloju Ramanachari - Current Civil Cases (2025).
Once impleaded, the transferee generally acquires rights and obligations similar to the transferor and remains bound by the final judgment, subject to conditions like bona fides and court leave Yogesh Goyanka VS Govind - 2024 5 Supreme 355. Courts exercise discretion in allowing impleadment, weighing factors such as notice of the suit, good faith, and delay Sanjay Verma VS Manik Roy - 2006 8 Supreme 1007.
After impleadment, your position strengthens significantly:
However, these rights aren't absolute. If the transfer lacked court leave or was in bad faith, protections may be limited Yogesh Goyanka VS Govind - 2024 5 Supreme 355.
Under Section 52 TPA, the transfer deed isn't voided but made subject to the suit's result. The transferee would be entitled to or suffer same legal rights and obligations of his vendor as may be eventually determined by Court Bandari Laxmaiah Laxmaiah VS Chelloju Ramanachari - Current Civil Cases (2025).
This binds even unimpleaded transferees, but impleadment offers a chance to influence the outcome actively. In specific performance suits, transferees acquiring the defendant's full interest are vitally interested in the litigation, warranting impleadment Rajendra Kumar S/o Sohanlalji Balotiya VS Rameshchandra S/o Ruplalji Kakhani - 2017 Supreme(Raj) 439.
Courts scrutinize several factors:
Bad faith or clandestine transfers limit defenses, binding you strictly to the decree Yogesh Goyanka VS Govind - 2024 5 Supreme 355.
Judicial precedents clarify nuances:
These rulings emphasize judicial discretion balancing justice Rajendra Kumar S/o Sohanlalji Balotiya VS Rameshchandra S/o Ruplalji Kakhani - 2017 Supreme(Raj) 439.
To safeguard rights:
Courts must judiciously balance interests for fairness.
A transferee purchaser impleaded in a suit gains participation rights but remains tethered to the final decree under lis pendens. While protected to defend interests, outcomes depend on bona fides, timing, and discretion Yogesh Goyanka VS Govind - 2024 5 Supreme 355Bandari Laxmaiah Laxmaiah VS Chelloju Ramanachari - Current Civil Cases (2025)Sanjay Verma VS Manik Roy - 2006 8 Supreme 1007Nisar Mohd VS Dhapu Bai - 2014 0 Supreme(Raj) 1327.
Key Takeaways:- Transfers pendente lite are valid but subordinate to suit results.- Impleadment enables hearing but binds you to judgment.- Prove good faith to maximize protections.- Always check for pending suits before buying.
Stay informed, act swiftly, and seek professional guidance to mitigate risks in property transactions.
#LisPendens #TransfereeRights #PropertyLawIndia
The question of impleadment of a transferree pendente lite is squarely covered by Section 52 T.P. Act order I Rule 10 C.P.C. and order XXII Rule 10 C.P.C. ... The petitioner can also implead the subsequent purchaser/transferee, if such rights are transferred in pursuance to the implementation of rehabilitation scheme”. ... It is stated that against the aforesaid judgment of Delhi High Court S.L.P. has also been dismissed. ... Act applies under certain circumstances transferree pendente lite may be perm....
In that case, subsequent purchaser had not interfered with the possession nor asserted any independent rights. ... Furthermore, Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, which prohibits transfer of property during pendency of suit, does not preclude court from impleading subsequent purchaser when such impleadment is necessary for just and effective resolution of dispute. ... It is further contended that Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act restricts transfer of property during pendency of suit....
They argued that such a purchaser is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the litigation and that any decree passed in the suit would bind him irrespective of impleadment. ... The plaintiffs opposed the application, contending that the applicant was only a subsequent purchaser during the pendency of the suit, and his alleged rights were hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. ... The said purchaser thereafter mov....
Shukla, Learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs contended that the Appellant is not entitled to impleadment as he is not a bona fide purchaser. ... Permitting the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite is, in each case, a discretionary exercise undertaken to enable a purchaser with a legally enforceable right to protect their interests especially when the transferor fails to defend the suit or where there is a possibility of collusion. ... The Respondents herein assail the impleadment#HL_....
property without seeking leave of the court but only said the transferee purchaser cannot as a matter of right seek impleadment. ... in the record of rights. ... The respondent here in assail the impleadment of the appellant on the ground that he is not a bona fide purchaser as he had full knowledge of the pending litigation. While that is the admitted position, there exists no bar to the impleadment of transferees’ pendent lite with notice. ... Permitting the impleadment#HL_....
it subservient to the rights of the other parties to the litigation. ... From the above any judgment in the suit would substantially effect the right of petitioner who claims to have received gift from the purchaser. Accordingly, there is no doubt that petitioner has substantial interest in the suit property and is a necessary party. ... That means that the Court in which the suit is pending, has the power, in appropriate cases, to permit a party to transfer the property which is the subject-matter of t....
the Supreme Court considered the question of impleadment when a third party sought impleadment in a Suit for specific performance of the contract. ... In the aforesaid view of the matter, it cannot be said that the third party is the subsequent purchaser, or for that matter, any interest in the suit properties has been created in favour of the third party, so as to render his impleadment necessary for a complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute ... Lala Deep Chand & Others, (....
The matter would be different when the lis pendens purchaser comes to Court to contend that in his absence his rights cannot be well protected by the parties present in the suit. ... Also it is not the plaintiffs who seek impleadment of said Manasmita Senapati in the suit and it is only Defendant No.8, who wants to bring her in the fray for no purpose other than the fact that she is a lis pendens purchaser of part of suit schedule property. ... Permitting the #HL_STAR....
The plea raised by the petitioner that he was bonafide purchaser, has to be decided, before it can be held that no rights flow to him, on the basis of the sale deed in his favour. ... It it submitted that a person, who purchases a property, during the pendency of the suit, is allowed to get impleaded in the suit, there will be no end to such impleadment, as the parties will indulge in further transfers of the suit property and the plaintiff as ‘dominuslitis’ cannot be made to fight .......
In a suit for specific performance, the Court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board, and who files application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation. ... In a suit for specific performance of contract, even a subsequent purchaser becomes a necessary party and the contention whether such a purchaser is a bona fide purchaser or not can be adjudicated during the course of trial....
5. Apparently, impleadment of the petitioner in the suit, who is a purchaser pendente lite from the plaintiff, so many years after the suit was instituted, is not necessary.
When the transfer is of the entire rights of the of the defendant, the latter having no more interest in the property, may not properly defend the suit. Permitting the impleadment, the Supreme Court ruled that a transferree pendente lite, to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendant is vitally interested in the litigation.
On 13 December 2011, the subsequent purchaser was served with the chamber summons seeking his impleadment in the suit. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the subsequent purchaser by virtue of Deeds of Assignment dated 21 September 2011 obtained undivided rights to the extent of 83% in the property bearing CTS No. 515-C from defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The subsequent purchaser filed an affidavit-in-reply opposing the said chamber summons on 3 January 2012. Within a period of nine days thereafter, i.e., on 12 January 2012, the subsequent purchaser, however, entered into ....
On 13 December 2011, the subsequent purchaser was served with the chamber summons seeking his impleadment in the suit. The subsequent purchaser filed an affidavitinreply opposing the said chamber summons on 3 January 2012. Within a period of nine days thereafter, i.e., on 12 January 2012, the subsequent purchaser, however, entered into the conveyance with defendant No.4 for acquiring his undivided rights to the extent of remaining 17% in the suit properties bearing CTS Nos.725 and 515C. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the subsequent purchaser by virtue of Deeds....
Accordingly, if petitioner purchased the property during pendency of the suit he could very well apply for his impleadment as subsequent purchaser. The lower revisional Court has wrongly distinguished the authority of the Supreme Court in Amit Kumar Shaw and another v. Farida Khatoon and another, AIR 2005 SC 2209 : (2005) 11 SCC 403 : 2005 (2) ARC 174. If Ganga Ram had transferred the property to the petitioner before filing of the suit then it would have been necessary for the plaintiffs to implead the petitioner as subsequent purchaser. It has been held in the said author....
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
