During the pendency of a property dispute in a ...., Mr. A purchases property...Can the doctrine of lis pendens bar him...

The present case revolves around the applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in the context of a property transfer made during the pendency of a litigation. Mr. A purchased the disputed property from one of the parties involved in an ongoing civil suit, with full knowledge that the property was sub judice. Subsequently, Mr. B, the opposing party in the suit, objected to this transaction and invoked the doctrine of lis pendens to prevent Mr. A from asserting any rights over the property. Mr. A, in response, sought to be impleaded as a party to the ongoing suit to protect his interest in the property.

Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act lays down that during the pendency of a suit or proceeding which is not collusive and involves any right to immovable property, such property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit so as to affect the rights of any other party under any decree or order that may be passed. The primary purpose of this provision is to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and to prevent the frustration of judicial proceedings by transfers that may alter the rights or interests in the property during litigation.

It is important to note that the doctrine of lis pendens does not render the transfer void, but it does make the transferee subject to the outcome of the suit. In this context, Mr. A’s purchase of the property does not grant him independent ownership rights over the disputed property that can override the court’s final decree. However, this does not mean that Mr. A is completely barred from participating in the proceedings. Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, the court has the discretion to add a person as a party to the suit if his presence is necessary or proper for the effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved.

The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the position of a transferee pendente lite as a proper but not necessary party. In K.K. Koyabu v. T.N. Balakrishnan (2021) 3 SCC 751, the Court held that although such a transferee is bound by the result of the litigation, he may be added as a party to defend his interest. Similarly, in Sarabjit Singh v. Harbans Kaur (2020 SCC OnLine SC 940), the Court clarified that while the doctrine of lis pendens binds a transferee to the outcome of the litigation, he may still be impleaded in the suit to represent his interest. Furthermore, in Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal (2004) 2 SCC 601, it was reiterated that such transferees cannot assert rights superior to those of their transferors and must abide by the result of the suit.

In conclusion, Mr. A’s impleadment in the ongoing suit is legally permissible. His rights as a purchaser are subordinate to the decree passed in the original suit due to the application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The doctrine of lis pendens does not prohibit his addition as a party but ensures that any interest he has acquired in the property remains subject to the result of the litigation. Therefore, the court may exercise its discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to implead Mr. A as a proper party, while his rights in the property would remain subordinate to the final outcome of the dispute.

• Property Law - Notes, Case Laws And Study Material
• Test Series for Competitions