Holding

Purchasers of undivided shares are necessary parties and may be impleaded; Section 52 does not restrict them to the rights of their transferors.

Summary

The first respondent filed a suit for partition of his undivided share in a property. The appellants, having purchased the undivided shares of the other co‑sharers through registered sale deeds, applied to be impleaded in the partition suit, claiming they were bona fide purchasers for value and entitled to the alienor's equity. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground of the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the High Court upheld that dismissal. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Section 52 does not limit the purchasers' rights to those of their transferors and that they are necessary parties to work out the equity in the final decree. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court order, allowed the impleadment of the appellants, and restored the suit for disposal on merits.

Issues considered

Whether a purchaser of an undivided share of co‑owners, acquired during the pendency of a partition suit, can be impleaded as a necessary party under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Whether the doctrine of lis pendens bars the purchaser's right to be impleaded and limits his rights to those of the transferor.

Legislation cited

Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 52

Subjects

Transfer of Property ActSection 52lis pendenspartition suitimpleadmentbona fide purchaserundivided sharecivil appeal

Judgment

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.

First respondent filed suit for partition of his share in the property.
D 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

Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
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
& 6. First respondent has got an undivided share in the suit property.
G 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
appellants, they have purchased the properties from the second, third,
"'y
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
Principal District Judge, Thanjavur came to the conclusion that since the G
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

\
y
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I S.C.R.

A 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 holding so, dismissed the
revision on the ground that there is no justification to interfere with the
orders passed by the courts below. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants
have come before this Court.
B
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act reads thus:

"52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto- During
the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of
c India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established
beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or
proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to
immovable property is directly and specifically itt question, the
property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party
to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other
D party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein,
except under the authority of the Court and on 'such terms as it may
impose.

Explanation - For the purposes of this section, the pendency of
E a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from·the date
of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding
in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit
or proceeding has beeti disposed of by a final decree or order and
complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been
F obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration
of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by
any law for the time being in force."

4. Section 52 deals with a transfer of property pending suit. In the
instant case, the appellants have admittedly pli.rchased·the undivided shares
G of the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 6. It is not in dispute that the first
respondent P. Mohan has got afl'undivided share in the said suit property.
Because of the purchase by the appellants of the undivided share in the suit
property, the rights of the first respondent herein in the suit or proceeding
will not affect his right in the suit· property by enforcing a ·partition.
H Admittedly, the appellants, having purchased the property from the other l
DHANLAKSHMI v. P. MOHAN [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 1079

co-sharers, in our opinion, are entitled to come on record in order to work A
out the equity in their favour in the final decree proceedings. In our opinion,
the appellants are necessary and proper parties to the suit, which is now
pending before the Trial Court. We also make it clear that we are not
concerned with the other suit filed by the mortgagee in these proceedings.

5. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court and
B
order the application for impleadment filed by the appellants herein and array
them as party defendant Nos. 7, 8 & 9 in the Suit. The appellants will now
be at liberty to file the written statements in the pending suit.

6. In view of the order now passed by this Court, the preliminary decree C
passed by the Trial Court in the absence of the appellants cannot stand. We,
therefore, set aside the preliminary decree and restore the suit to its original
number and direct the Trial Court to dispose of the same on merits and
affording opportunity to the appellants to file a written statement and after
framing the necessary issues. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of this
suit within six months from today.
D

7. The Civil Appeal stands allowed on the above terms.

No costs.
E
NJ. Appeal allowed.

-).