Telangana High Court
R.Gangappa vs Smt. Lakshmamma Lakshmakka 4 Others on 13 December, 2018
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4 7 6 2 OF 2015
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dated 01/09/2015 passed in I.A.No. 534 of 2009 in O.S.No. 114 of 2006 by the Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner, Chittoor district.
2. The suit is filed for a declaration of tile and for recovery of possession etcetera. It appears pending the suit, she sold the property to the proposed implead party. The subsequent purchaser, who acquired the property filed an application seeking to implead himself in the suit stating that he is not aware of the pendency of the suit and the first plaintiff, who has conveyed her interest will not adequately defend the suit. The said application was resisted by the respondents. Ultimately, the impugned order was passed and it was held that the petitioner is not a necessary or proper party to the proceedings and the doctrine of lis pendence. 2 Questioning the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3. This Court has heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Rama Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Sri V.S.R. Anjanayeulu, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for the value, who had no knowledge of the pendency of the suit. In addition, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that it is clearly averred in the affidavit that the plaintiff has conveyed the interest in the property may not pursue and prosecute the case properly due to her old age and that she would be put to heavy loss and hardship if the suit is not effectively contested. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the doctrine of lis pendence does not render transaction void by merely makes it subservient to the ultimate decree that is passed in the suit. Therefore, it is his contention that the transaction and the sale 3 deed are not void but they will be subject to the result of the suit. Learned counsel relies upon 2012 [6] ALD 102, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NAWAB JOHN V/s. SUBRAHMANIYAM, wherein the rights of the pendenti lite purchaser was discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by analyzing the case law on the subject. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon paragraph No.19 of the aforesaid judgment, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after review of the entire law on the subject held that the preponderance of opinion that pendenti lite of purchaser's application for impleadment should be allowed or considered liberally.
5. In reply thereto, the learned counsel for the respondents relies upon 1996 [5] S.C.C. 539 and argues that as the doctrine of lis pendence applies, the present Revision Petitioner is not necessary and without his presence the issue of title can be decided. Therefore, he argues that the lower court did not commit any error in the impugned order.
4
6. This Court after hearing both the counsel noticed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1983 SC-124. In addition thereto as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in 2012 [6] A.L.D. 102, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India went into the history of lis pendence purchaser and the cases on the said subject.
7. In paragraph Nos. 17 and 19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India went into the rights of lis pendence purchaser. Ultimately after reviewing the entire law on the subject, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to a conclusion that lis pendence purchaser viz., has a right to be impleaded and that the applications filed by the purchaser should be considered liberally.
8. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel also notices that the fear expressed by the Revision Petitioner in her affidavit is often a reality. Once the original owner transfers her right she may not participate effectively in the adjudication of the dispute, which is pending before the court below. In such a case, 5 an innocent third party will suffer irreparable loss if the case is not pursued correctly and/or effectively.
9. The doctrine of lis pendence does not render the sale void, it only makes the sale subservient in the decree that is ultimately passed. Therefore, if there is a clear and present danger that the suit may not be contested effectively there will not be a complete adjudication of the rights involved for a complete and an affective adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit, the presence of the Revision Petitioner is necessary. One of the objectives of this Court is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, by adding the proposed party multiplicity can be avoided and it is settled law that the proposed party should step into the shoes of the vendor can only take defences that were available to his vendor.
10. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the court below committed an error in dismissing the application 2009 [1] L S 444 which was cited in the lower court is applicable to the facts of this case. In addition to the above, the judgment of the Hon'ble 6 Supreme Court of India reported in 2012 [6] ALD-102 clearly clinches the issue. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that this Civil Revision Petition is to be allowed, the order dated 01/09/2015 is set aside and the application in I.A.No. 534 of 2009 is ordered accordingly.
11. This Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed but in the circumstances no costs.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any, pending in this CRP shall stand disposed of.
____________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU.
13/12/2018 IsL 7 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4 7 6 2 OF 2015 [RESULT] : [ IMPLEADMENT PETITION OF A BONAFIDE PURCHASER OF THE SUIT PROPERTY IS ORDERED TO AVOID MULTIPLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS AND CRP IS ALLOWED ] Circulation No: 298 Date: 13-12-2018 Court Master : I s L