LexYOGESH GOYANKA versus GOVIND & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 668 : 2024 INSC 510 Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7305 of 2024) 10 July 2024 [Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma*, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Appellant, pendente lite purchaser of the Subject Land, filed impleadment application before the District Judge (ADJ) under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, which was dismissed. The order was upheld by the High Court. Whether Appellant, who undisputedly had notice of the pending litigation, was not entitled to impleadment as he was not a bona fide purchaser. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.52 – Doctrine of lis pendens – Impleadment of transferee pendente lite who undisputedly had notice of the pending litigation – If barred – Code of Civil Procedure – Order 1 Rule 10. Held: 1. There is no bar to the impleadment of transferees pendente lite with notice – On facts, the mere fact that the registered sale deed (RSD) in question was executed during the pendency of the Underlying Suit does not automatically render it null and void – The law on impleadment of subsequent transferees, as established by the Supreme Court has evolved in a manner that liberally enables subsequent transferees to protect their interests in recognition of the possibility that the transferor pendente lite may not defend the title or may collude with the plaintiff therein – Misplaced reliance of ADJ on judgment of this Court in Bibi Zubaida – The only principle emerging from Bibi Zubaida is that transferees pendente lite cannot seek impleadment as a matter of right – However it does not place a bar on impleadment of transferees who purchase property without seeking leave of the Court – Permitting the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite is, in each case, a discretionary exercise undertaken to enable a purchaser with a legally enforceable right to protect their interests * Author [2024] 7 S.C.R. 669 Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind & Ors. especially when the transferor fails to defend the suit or where there is a possibility of collusion [Paras 17-19]. 2. In the particular facts and circumstances of this case, there is a possibility of collusion between the Respondents – It is also curious that the claim of non-payment of consideration by the Appellant was made for the first time before this Court – Appellant has a registered sale deed in his favor and has therefore seemingly acquired an interest in the Subject Land – Whether or not the consideration was paid, is a disputed question of fact that shall be determined by the Trial Court – Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the fact that the trial has not progressed significantly, the Appellant, in the interest of justice, is entitled to impleadment in the Underlying Suit in order to protect his interests, if any, in the Subject Land – Appellant directed to be added as a party-defendant in the Underlying Suit. [Paras 20, 21, 22] Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.52 – Doctrine of lis pendens – Discussed. Held: The doctrine of lis pendens as provided u/s.52 of the Act does not render all transfers pendente lite to be void ab-initio – It merely renders rights arising from such transfers as subservient to the rights of the parties to the pending litigation and subject to any direction that the Court may pass thereunder. [Para 16] Case Law Cited Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb & Anr. [2003] Supp. 5 SCR 290 : (2004) 1 SCC 191 – Distinguished. Thomson Press v. Nanak Builders [2013] 2 SCR 74 : (2015) 5 SCC 397; Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon [2005] 3 SCR 509 : (2005) 11 SCC 403; A. Nawab John v. V.N. Subramaniyam [2012] 6 SCR 369 : (2012) 7 SCC 738 – Referred to. List of Acts Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Suit for permanent injunction and declaration; Release Deeds; pendente lite purchasers; Doctrine of lis pendens; Impleadment of a transferee pendente lite; Section 52 of TP Act; bona fide purchasers; Temporary injunction; Unpaid consideration. 670 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7305 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 21.01.2022 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCWP No. 17887 of 2019 Appearances for Parties C.A Sundaram, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Gupta, Mrs. Rohini Musa, Jafar Inayat, Kuldeep Yadav, Advs. for the Appellant. Huzefa Ahemdi, V.K. Shukla, Sr. Adv., Anuj Bhandari, Rajat Gupta,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.