A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case pertains to the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, examining the rights of a pendente lite purchaser. The central issue was whether a purchaser with notice of pending litigation can seek impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Supreme Court held that such a transferee can be impleaded at the court’s discretion to protect their interests. The judgment clarified the interplay between the doctrine of lis pendens and discretionary powers of impleadment, distinguishing earlier precedents like Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb and relying on Thomson Press v. Nanak Builders. The appellant’s impleadment was deemed essential due to potential collusion between the respondents and to avoid procedural unfairness.

Keywords:

Lis pendens, Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, Impleadment, Pendente lite, Bona fide purchaser

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 7305 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date:
10 July 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

vi) Author:
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

vii) Citation:
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 668

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882
• Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, 1908

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Civil Law, Property Law, Procedural Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The dispute originated from the impleadment application of the appellant, a purchaser of agricultural land during the pendency of litigation challenging prior transactions concerning the same property. The lower courts dismissed the appellant’s application based on his notice of pending proceedings, citing the doctrine of lis pendens. The High Court reinforced this dismissal, interpreting Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act as rendering the sale deed a nullity. The Supreme Court was tasked with assessing whether this approach was legally sustainable and equitable.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The subject property (2.38 hectares) in Rajasthan was purchased by the appellant and others through a registered sale deed (RSD) in 2018, during ongoing litigation initiated by plaintiffs seeking to nullify earlier transactions.

2. The property originally belonged to the plaintiffs, later transferred via release deeds in 2006-2007 to other defendants, who sold it to a third party. Revenue records were accordingly mutated.

3. In 2018, the plaintiffs challenged the validity of these transfers, claiming collusion and seeking a declaration of the sale deed’s nullity, obtaining a temporary injunction in their favor.

4. The appellant, aware of the litigation, sought impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, arguing his interest in protecting rights acquired through a lawful transaction. The ADJ and High Court dismissed the application, emphasizing the doctrine of lis pendens.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Can a pendente lite transferee with notice of pending litigation seek impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC?
2. Does the doctrine of lis pendens nullify the rights of transferees entirely, or merely subordinate them to prior claims?
3. Should discretionary powers favor impleadment where collusion is suspected among the litigants?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Legitimate Rights:
   The appellant contended that the registered sale deed vested him with a legitimate interest in the subject property. Impleadment was essential to prevent prejudice against his rights.

2. Doctrine of Lis Pendens Misinterpreted:
   Relying on Thomson Press v. Nanak Builders, the appellant argued that lis pendens does not render such transactions void but makes them subordinate to pending litigation.

3. Collusion Suspected:
   Pointing to familial ties among plaintiffs and defendants and the delayed filing of the original suit, the appellant raised suspicions of collusion.

4. Equity and Justice:
   The appellant highlighted that failure to implead him would deprive him of an opportunity to present his case, undermining justice.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Knowledge of Litigation:
   The respondents emphasized that the appellant had explicit notice of the ongoing suit and executed the transaction without court permission, invalidating his claims.

2. Reliance on Precedent:
   Citing Bibi Zubaida Khatoon, they argued that pendente lite transferees lack an inherent right to impleadment, particularly when the sale is suspect.

3. Non-Bona Fide Purchase:
   The respondents contended that part of the consideration remained unpaid, disqualifying the appellant as a bona fide purchaser.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:

1. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not render transfers pendente lite void but subordinates them to prior claims.
2. Impleadment is discretionary and can be granted to protect the rights of transferees, especially where collusion or procedural unfairness is alleged.

b. Obiter Dicta:
The doctrine of lis pendens should not be applied to defeat legitimate claims of subsequent transferees acting in good faith with enforceable rights.

c. Guidelines:

1. Impleadment applications by pendente lite transferees should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
2. Courts must ensure no prejudice arises from collusion or failure of parties to defend the suit.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court rectified procedural inequity by allowing the appellant’s impleadment, balancing legal doctrines with principles of equity. The case underscores the nuanced application of lis pendens, cautioning against blanket exclusions of transferees.

J) REFERENCES

1. Cases Referred:

   • Thomson Press v. Nanak Builders, (2015) 5 SCC 397
   • Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb, (2004) 1 SCC 191
   • Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon, (2005) 11 SCC 403
   • A. Nawab John v. V.N. Subramaniyam, (2012) 7 SCC 738

2. Statutes Referred:

   • Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882
   • Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, 1908