Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Lastly, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, exercising supervisory jurisdiction this Court has limited scope of interference. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2003 SC, 1561.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties.

In Sanjay Verma Vs. Manik Roy and Ors. (supra), the doctrine of lis pendens as also provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC came to be considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the principles specified in Section 52 of the T.P. Act are in accordance with equity, good conscience and justice because they rest upon an equitable and just foundation that it will be impossible to bring an action or suit to a successful termination if alienations are permitted to prevail. A transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree just as much as he was a party to the suit. The principle of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of the T.P. Act being a principle of public policy, no question of good faith or bonafide arises. The principle underlying Section 52 is that a litigating party is exempted from taking notice of a title acquired during the pendency of the litigation. The mere pendency of a suit does not prevent one of the parties from dealing with the property constituting the subject-matter of the suit. The Section only postulates a condition that the alienation will in no manner affect the rights of the other party under any decree which may be passed in the suit unless the property was alienated with the permission of the Court and while consideration the contention raised by the subsequent purchaser/ transferee that since they are not parties in the suit, their interest will get jeopardized, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is a trite law that if a person is not a party to a suit, the decree does not affect him unless the judgment is in rem and not in personem. On these premises, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that transferee pending suit for specific performance of agreement to sell cannot claim impleadment in view of doctrine of lis pendens.

In Sarvinder Singh Vs. Dalip Singh and Ors. (supra), while considering the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by subsequent purchaser/ transferee seeking impleadment in place of original defendant on the ground that they have purchased the disputed property during the pendency of the suit without leave of the Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such sale is hit by doctrine of lis pendens. Since the suit was merely for declaration of rights and therefore, the applicants therein were held to be improper party and the application for their impleadment was wrongly allowed. While considering the provision of Section 52 of the T.P. Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the defendants in the suit were prohibited by operation of Section 52 to deal with the property and could not transfer or otherwise deal with it in any way affecting the rights of the appellant except with the order or authority of the Court. In that case, admittedly, the authority or order of the Court had not been obtained for alienation of those properties and therefore, the alienation obviously would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens by operation of Section 52 and under these circumstances, the respondents therein cannot be considered to be either necessary or property parties to the suit.

Thus, from the decisions referred herein above, it is clear that during pendency of the suit, a transfer or alienation of property without leave of the Court is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens as envisaged under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the purchaser is bound by the decree between the original litigating party and subsequent purchaser of the property during pendency of the suit is neither a necessary nor proper party.

In Amit Kumar Shaw and another Vs. Farida Khatoon and Another (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the question as to whether an enforceable right of a person may be affected if he is not joined as also effect of final decree passed in the suit transferring the property pendente lite, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the doctrine of lis pendens applies only where the lis is pending before a Court. Further, pending the suit, the transferee is not entitled as of right to be made a party to the suit, though the court has a discretion to make him a party. But the transferee pendente lite can be added as a proper party if his interest in the subject-matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral. A transferee pendente lite to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendant is vitally interested in the litigation, where the transfer is of the entire interest of the defendant; the latter having no more interest in the property may not properly defend the suit. He may collude with the plaintiff. Hence, though the plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a party, under Order 22 Rule 10 an alienee pendente lite may be joined as party. However, the power of a Court to add a party to a proceeding cannot depend solely on the question whether he has interest in the suit property. The question is whether the right of a person may be affected if he is not added as a party. Such right, however, will necessarily include an enforceable legal right. A transferee pendente lite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where his predecessor-in-interest is made a party to the litigation; he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case.