DHANLAKSHMI AND ORS. versus P. MOHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 1076 · Decided: 17-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DHANLAKSHMI AND ORS. 
----
v. 
P. MOHAN AND ORS. 
JANUARY 17,2007 
B 
[DR.AR. LAKSHMANAN AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Section 52-Transfer of property 
1-
pending suit relating therct~Transferee purchasing undivided share of 
co-sharers in the suit property-Right to be brought on record, in suit for 
c partition by other sharer-Held: Right of other sharer in the suit will not 
affect his right in suit property by enforcing partition-Thus, transferee 
having purchased property from co-sharers are entitled to be impleaded 
to work out equity in their favour in final decree proceedings. 
D 
First respondent filed suit for partition of his share in the property. 
Appellants purchased properties from second, third, fourth and sixth 
respondents by sale deeds. Appellants filed application for impleadment in 
11' 
the suit on the ground that they are bonajide purchasers for value and 
entitled for alienors share in equity, thus are necessary parties for 
effective adjudication of dispute. Trial Court dismissed the application 
E 
holding that the sale in favour of appellants were covered by doctrine of /is 
pendens and they can only have whatever rights their transferors had. 
Appellants filed revision petiGon which was dismissed. Hence the present 
appeal 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with 
y 
a transfer of property pending suit. In the instant case, the appellants have 
admittedly purchased the undivided shares of the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 
G 
& 6. First respondent has got an undivided share in the suit property. 
Because of the purchase by the appellants of the undivided share in the suit 
property, the rights of the first respondent in the suit or proceeding will 
not affect his right in the suit property by enforcing a partition. Admittedly, 
the appellants, having purchased the property from the other co-sharers, 
1-
are entitled to come on record in order to work out the equity in their 
H 
favour in the final decree proceedings. The appellants are necessary and 
1076 
... 
DHANLAKSHMI v. P. MOHAN [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 
1077 
-; 
proper, parties to the suit, which is now pending before the trial court. The 
A 
order passed by the High Court is set aside and application for impleadmcnt 
is allowed. [Paras 4 and SJ (1078-G-H, 1079-A-BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 262 of2007. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 6.1.2005 of the Madras High 
B 
Court (Madurai Bench) in C.R.P. (P.D.) No. 357/2004. 
-y 
V.Prabhakar, Ramjee Prasad, Subramani and Revathy Raghavan forthe 
Appellants. 
c 
R. Nedumaran for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR AR LAKSHMANAN, J. : Leave granted. 
D 
i... 
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 
' 
6.1.2005 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. 
(P.D.) No.357 of2004. We have heard Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel for 
the appellants and Mr. R. Nedumaran, learned counsel for the contesting 
respondents. 
E 
3. The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants 
herein against the order dismissing the application filed by them to implead 
themselves in the suit filed by the first respondent (P. Mohan) for partition 
of his share of the property in O.S. No.82 of 2004. According to the 
F 
"'y 
appellants, they have purchased the properties from the second, third, 
fourth and sixth respondents by two registered sale deeds dated 18.6.1999 
and 21.6.1999 and they are the bona fide purchasers for the value and 
entitled for alien ors' share in equity and, therefore, they are the necessary 
parties for effective adjudication of the dispute in O.S. No.82 of 2004. The 
G 
Principal District Judge, Thanjavur came to the conclusion that since the 
sales in favour of the appellants were covered by the doctrine of Lis 
Pendens and since they can only have whatever rights their transferors had, 
-} 
it is necessary to deal with their rights separately and dismissed the 
application. Against that order, the appellants preferred the revision before 
the High Court. The High Court also dismissed the revision on the ground 
H 
\ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1078 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] I S.C.R. 
that the appellants are not entitled to be impleaded since the right that they 
may have cannot be larger than the right of their vendors, assuming that 
they are bona fide purchasers. The High Court ho

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.