Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, does not render all transfers pendente lite to be void MANU/SC/0597/2024 - (10 Jul 2024) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Yogesh Goyanka Vs. Govind and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 510)</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The present appeal arises out of judgment passed by the High Court whereby the writ petition preferred by the Appellant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 was dismissed. 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 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge. 
The fulcrum of the dispute concerns the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite who undisputedly had notice of the pending litigation. The doctrine of lis pendens as provided Under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not render all transfers pendente lite to be void ab-initio, it merely renders rights arising from such transfers as subservient to the rights of the parties to the pending litigation and subject to any direction that the Court may pass thereunder. 
Therefore, the mere fact that the Registered Sale Deed (RSD) was executed during the pendency of the Underlying Suit does not automatically render it null and void. On this ground alone, the Impugned Order to be wholly erroneous as it employs Section 52 of the Act to nullify the RSD and on that basis, concludes that the impleadment application is untenable. Contrary to this approach of the High Court, the law on impleadment of subsequent transferees, as established by this Court has evolved in a manner that liberally enables subsequent transferees to protect their interests in recognition of the possibility that the transferor pendente lite may not defend the title or may collude with the Plaintiff therein. 
Appellant has a registered sale deed in his favor and has therefore seemingly acquired an interest in the Subject Land. Whether or not the consideration was paid, is a disputed question of fact that shall be determined by the Trial Court. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, including the fact that the trial has not progressed significantly, the Appellant, in the interest of justice, is entitled to impleadment in the Underlying Suit in order to protect his interests, in the Subject Land. The Impugned Order and the order of the ADJ are set aside and the Appellant is directed to be added as a party- Defendant in the Underlying Suit. Appeal allowed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Impleadment, Entitlement, Doctrine</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>