Summary
A purchaser pendente lite was permitted to join the title suit despite knowing of its pendency and not obtaining prior leave. Section 52 makes the transfer subordinate to the litigation, not automatically void. On the particular record, a registered deed, possible collusion among the existing parties and limited trial progress justified discretionary impleadment; the disputed payment of consideration remained for trial.
Issues
- Whether lis pendens automatically invalidated the purchaser’s sale deed and barred impleadment.
- Whether knowledge of the suit or absence of prior leave precluded discretionary joinder.
- Whether the circumstances justified protecting the purchaser’s apparent interest while leaving factual disputes open.
Provisions considered
- Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882A pendente lite transfer remains subject to the pending suit’s outcome rather than becoming void ab initio merely because of pendency. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Order I Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Joinder of a subsequent purchaser is discretionary, not an absolute right; possible collusion and an apparent interest justified adding the appellant as defendant here. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
Held
- Lis pendens does not automatically nullify a conveyance during litigation. The transferee’s rights are subordinate to the rights determined in the suit and to the court’s directions; the High Court’s nullity-based rejection was erroneous. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- A transferee pendente lite has no unconditional right to impleadment, but prior knowledge and failure to seek leave do not create an absolute bar. Bibi Zubaida turned on its facts, including delay and complication of the suit, and did not require rejection here. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- Joinder may protect a purchaser where the transferor may not defend title or collusion is possible. The relationships among existing parties, the long delay before their suit and the newly raised non-payment objection supported the concern on this record. (¶¶ 17, 19, 20)
- The registered deed indicated an apparent interest, while whether consideration was actually paid remained a disputed fact for the trial court. With little trial progress, impleadment was warranted without finally adjudicating the purchaser’s title. (¶¶ 21, 22)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court and trial court orders rejecting impleadment set aside. Appellant to be added as a defendant; disputed consideration to be determined at trial.