SANJAY VERMA versus MANIK ROY AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 08-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SANJA Y VERMA 
A 
v. 
MANIK ROY AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 8, 2006 ' 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Section 52-General principles-Held: 
Litigant party is exempted from taking notice of title acquired during pendency 
of litigation-Principle of lis pende'1s is of public policy, where good faith C 
or bona fide do not arise-Transferee pendente lite is bound by decree just 
as much as he was party to the suit-Mere pendency of suit does not prevent 
one of the parties from dealing with the suit property-Only property alienated 
with the permission of the Court could affect rights of other party under 
decree passed in the suit-Thus, order of High Court that transferees pendente 
lite without leave of the court could be added as parties in the suit, is set D 
aside. 
Appellant filed suit for specific performance with regard to the suit 
property in 1991. During pendency of the suit, in year 1993 suit property 
was transferred in favour of respondents. Respondents filed an application 
under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC for impleadment to contest the suit in 2005. E 
Trial court held that both the transferees had purchased the suit property 
after filing of the suit, without obtaining leave of the court and thus, the 
transfer is pendente lite and is hit by section 52 of the Transfer of Property 
Act, 1882 and rejected the prayer for impleadment. High Court allowed their 
writ petition holding that the respondents' vendors were not parties to the F 
suit and there was no representation of respondent to safeguard their interest 
and therefore, they are required to be added as parties in the suit. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The principles specified in section 52 of the Transfer of 
Property Act, 1882 are in accordance with equity, good conscience of justice 
because they rest upon an equitable and just foundation that it will be 
impossible to bring an action or suit to a successful termination if alienations 
are permitted to prevail. A transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree 
469 
G 
H 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. IO S.C.R. 
A just as much as he was a party to the suit. The principle of /is pendens embodied 
in section 52 of the T.P. Act being a principle of public policy, no question of 
good faith or bona.fide arises. The principle underlying Section 52 is that a 
litigating party is exempted from taking notice of a title acquired during the 
pend ency of the litigation. The mere pendency of a suit does not prevent one 
of the parties from dealing with the property constituting the subject matter 
B of the suit. Section only postulates a condition that the alienation will in no 
manner affect the rights of the other party under any decree which may be 
passed in the suit unless the property was alienated with the permission of 
the Court. Thus, the High Court's view that the respondents' vendors were 
not parties to the suit and there was no representation of respondent to 
C safeguard their interest and therefore, they are required to be added as parties 
in the suit, is clearly indefensible and.is set aside. [474-C-FJ 
D 
1.2. It is trite law that if a person is not a party to a suit, the decree 
does not affect him unless the judgment is in rem and not in personem. 
(474-GJ 
Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb and Anr., (20041 1 SCC 
191, distinguished. 
Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh and Ors., (19961 5 SCC 539; and 
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University and Ors., (20011 6 SCC 
E 534, referred to. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5664 of2006. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.4.2006 of the High Court 
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. (C) No. 943/2006. 
S.B. Upadhyay, Shivmangai Sharma, R.R. Dubey, Santosh Mishra, Pawan 
Upadhyay and Sharmila Upadhyay for the Appellant. 
Reetesh Singh, Yunus Malik and Prashant Choudhary for the 
Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT, J. Leave granted. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single 
Judge of the Jharkhand High Court allowing application filed by the 
H respondents in terms of Order I Rule I 0 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 
-
SANJAYVERMAv. MANIKROY [PASAYAT,J.] 
471 
(in short the 'CPC'). The applicants are transferees of the property in dispute A 
during the pendency of the suit. 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
Appellant filed a suit for sp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.