YOGESH GOYANKAversusGOVIND & ORS.

                 [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,
       Harikumar V., Anupam Mishra, Govind R, Mrs. S Krishna, Ms.
       Rajnandini, Abhisar Bhanu, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Anupam Kishore
       Sinha, Advs. for the Respondents.
                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment
       Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
1.     Leave granted.
2.     The present appeal arises out of judgment dated 21.01.2022 passed
       by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ
       Petition No. 17887 of 2019 whereby the writ petition preferred by the
       Appellant herein under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was
       dismissed (the ‘Impugned Order’). The Appellant approached the
       High Court on being aggrieved by the dismissal of his impleadment
       application under Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
       (the ‘CPC’) vide order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the Ld. Additional
       District Judge No. 1, Hindaun City (the ‘ADJ’).
       Brief Facts:
3.     The Appellant before us, along with the proforma Respondents herein
       purchased farming land being Khasra No. 5896, 5897, 5898, 5936
       and 5895 admeasuring 2.38 hectare at Hinduan City, Rajasthan
       (the ‘Subject Land’) from Respondent No. 21 vide registered sale
       deed dated 28.09.2018 (the ‘RSD’) for a collective consideration
       of Rs. 1,51,65,360/-. Admittedly, the RSD contained an explicit
       declaration to the effect that there were cases pending in the Court
       of the Ld. SDM and in the court of Ld. ADJ, Hindaun City, relating
       to the Subject Land.
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                           671

                    Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind & Ors.


4.   The Subject Land originally belonged to Respondent Nos. 1-17 (the
     ‘Plaintiffs’) and was released in favor of Respondent Nos. 18-20 (the
     ‘Defendants’) vide release deeds dated 11.08.2006 and 31.01.2007
     (the ‘Release Deeds’). Thereafter, on the strength of the Release
     Deeds, the Subject Land was sold to Respondent No. 21 by the
     Defendants vide registered sale deed dated 26.04.2007 and the
     revenue records were mutated to reflect the name of Respondent
     No. 21. It is pertinent to note that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
     are all relatives, having a common ancestor namely, one Mr. Nathua.
5.   The events giving rise to the present appeal began on 03.01.2018
     when the Plaintiffs filed Suit No. 1 of 2018 in the court of the
     ADJ, against the Defendants and Respondent No. 21 (hereinafter
     collectively referred to as the ‘Original Defendants’) seeking
     permanent injunction and a declaration to the effect that the Release
     Deeds and the sale deed dated 26.04.2007 are null and void (the
     ‘Underlying Suit’).
6.   Admittedly, after the issuance of notice in the Underlying Suit,
     Respondent No. 21 entered appearance before the ADJ on 11.01.2018
     and hence knowingly executed the RSD in favor of the Appellant
     pendente lite. Thereafter, on 25.01.2019, the ADJ granted a temporary
     injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs.
7.   On becoming aware of the temporary injunction, the Appellant, along
     with the other pendente lite purchasers of the Subject Land filed an
     impleadment application on 13.02.2019 before the ADJ under Order
     1 Rule 10, CPC. Vide order dated 10.10.2019, the application was
     dismissed by the ADJ holding that no need arises to implead the
     applicants therein as (i) permission of the Court was not sought
     prior to the sale; and (ii) more importantly, they were not bona fide
     purchasers as they were wholly cognizant of the Underlying Suit
     prior to their purchase. The ADJ placed reliance on the judgment
     of this Court in Bibi Zubaida Khatoon vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb &
     Anr (2004) 1 SCC 191.
8.   Thereafter, the Appellant alone approached the High Court under
     Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the ADJ.
     Vide the Impugned Order, the High Court held that the impleadment
     application was untenable as the RSD itself was a nullity by virtue of
     being hit by the doctrine of lis pendens as provided under Section
     52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (the ‘Act’).
672                                                            [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Submissions & Analysis:
9.     Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant
       forcefully contended before us that the Appellant after paying the
       full consideration, obtained a registered sale deed in his favor and is
       therefore entitled to the protection of his interests in the Subject Land.
       He argues that impleadment of the Appellant in the Underlying Suit
       is necessary as there exists a real possibility of collusion between
       the Plaintiffs and the Original Defendants. To substantiate his claim,
       Learned Counsel highlights that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
       are relatives. Further, he points to the considerable delay in the
       filing of the Underlying Suit, about 12 years after the execution of
       the Release Deeds.
10. On the legal issue, Mr. Sundaram asserts that there is no bar to the
    impleadment of a transferee pendente lite, even when the transferee
    has prior knowledge of pendency. To buttress his contention, he
    points to the judgment of this Court in Thomson Press vs. Nanak
    Builders, (2015) 5 SCC 397 wherein, after considering all the
    previous judgments on the question of impleadment of a transferee
    pendente lite, this Court permitted the impleadment of a transferee
    in a suit for specific performance, who not only had notice of the
    pendency but also had knowledge of the injunction prohibiting any
    transactions relating to the subject property therein.
11. Per contra Mr. V.K. Shukla, Learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs
    contended that the Appellant is not entitled to impleadment as he is
    not a bona fide purchaser. He argued that despite having knowledge
    of the pendency, no permission was sought from the Court to execute
    the RSD and hence, the Appellant is not entitled to any relief. To
    buttress his contention, reliance is placed on Bibi Zubaida (supra)
    wherein this Court held that transferees pendente lite cannot, as a
    matter of right, seek impleadment. In that case, this Court upheld the
    decision of the trial court rejecting impleadment on grounds that the
    transferee was not bona fide and was only attempting to complicate
    and delay the pending suit.
12. Mr. Shukla also contends that the judgment of this Court in Thomson
    Press (supra) is entirely distinguishable on facts from the present
    matter and is hence inapplicable. To that extent, he highlights that
    contrary to the factual position in Thomson Press (supra), in this
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                         673

                    Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind & Ors.


     case, the title of the Appellant itself is in question and additionally,
     the Appellant is not in possession of the Subject Land.
13. Going a little further, Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Learned Senior Counsel
    for Respondent No. 21 contends that the Appellant cannot seek
    impleadment as he is not even a purchaser of the Subject Land. Mr.
    Ahmadi submits that out of the 6 cheques issued under the RSD, 2
    cheques bounced on 01.10.2018 rendering the consideration unpaid.
    He highlights that the RSD contains an express clause to the effect
    that if the payment made under the 6 cheques are not completed,
    the purchasers will not receive any legal rights over the Subject
    Land through the RSD. On the question of unpaid consideration,
    Mr. Sundaram asserts that the entire consideration was paid by the
    Appellant via RTGS.
14. He further highlights that this contention was neither raised before
    the ADJ nor the High Court and is merely an afterthought, pointing
    further to the Appellant’s suspicion of collusion between the parties.
    It is also brought to the notice of this Court that Respondent No. 21
    previously filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the RSD is
    null and void but the same was dismissed in default on 28.02.2020.
15. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully
    perused the record.
16. The fulcrum of the dispute herein concerns the impleadment of a
    transferee pendente lite who undisputedly had notice of the pending
    litigation. At the outset, it appears pertinent to reiterate the settled
    position that the doctrine of lis pendens as provided under Section
    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.
17. Therefore, the mere fact that the RSD was executed during the
    pendency of the Underlying Suit does not automatically render it null
    and void. On this ground alone, we find the Impugned Order to be
    wholly erroneous as it employs Section 52 of the Act to nullify the
    RSD and on that basis, concludes that the impleadment application
    is untenable. Contrary to this approach of the High Court, the law
    on impleadment of subsequent transferees, as established by this
    Court has evolved in a manner that liberally enables subsequent
674                                                           [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 [See the decision of this Court in
       Amit Kumar Shaw vs. Farida Khatoon, (2005) 11 SCC 403 & A.
       Nawab John vs. V.N. Subramaniyam, (2012) 7 SCC 738].
18. Similarly, we also find fault with the order of the ADJ and its misplaced
    reliance on Bibi Zubaida (supra). The only principle emerging from
    the judgment of this Court in Bibi Zubaida (supra) is that transferees
    pendente lite cannot seek impleadment as a matter of right and to
    that extent, we agree with the ADJ. However, Bibi Zubaida (supra)
    does not place a bar on impleadment of transferees who purchase
    property without seeking leave of the Court. The decision of the Court
    in Bibi Zubaida (supra) turns on its own facts; the Court rejected
    the application for joinder therein noting that the underlying suit
    was pending since 1983 and upheld the finding of the Trial Court
    that the subsequent purchaser was not bona fide and attempted to
    complicate and delay the underlying suit. Therefore, the judgment
    in Bibi Zubaida (supra), being distinguishable on facts, does not
    assist the Respondents herein.
19. The Respondents herein assail the impleadment of the Appellant
    on the ground that he is not a bona fide purchaser as he had full
    knowledge of the pending litigation. While that is the admitted position,
    there exists no bar to the impleadment of transferees pendente lite
    with notice. 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
    especially when the transferor fails to defend the suit or where there
    is a possibility of collusion.
20. In the particular facts and circumstances of this case, Mr. Sundaram
    has been able to satisfy this Court on the possibility of collusion
    between the Respondents. It is a fact that the Plaintiffs and Defendants
    are relatives. More importantly, Plaintiffs approached the court in
    the Underlying Suit after a substantial delay of 11 years whereas
    admittedly, the revenue records were mutated to reflect the name
    of Respondent No. 21 since 2007. It is also curious that the claim
    of non-payment of consideration by the Appellant was made for the
    first time before this Court.
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                             675

                       Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind & Ors.


21. On the other hand, the 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. Therefore,
    in the considered opinion of this Court, considering the totality of
    the circumstances in this case, including the fact that the trial has
    not progressed significantly, the Appellant herein, 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.
22. In light of the aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed. The Impugned
    Order and the order of the ADJ dated 10.10.2019 are set aside and
    the Appellant is directed to be added as a party-defendant in the
    Underlying Suit.
23. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
                                 (With assistance from: Geethika. K, LCRA)