- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dhanlakshmi And Others v. P. Mohan And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The first respondent, P. Mohan, instituted OS No. 82 of 2004 seeking partition of his undivided share in certain immovable property. During the pendency of the suit, the appellants purchased the undivided interests of Respondents 2, 3, 4, and 6 through two registered sale deeds dated 18-6-1999 and 21-6-1999. Contending that they were bona fide purchasers for value, the appellants applied to be impleaded as parties to the partition suit.
The Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, dismissed the impleadment application, holding that the transfers were hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and that the purchasers could work out their rights separately. The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) affirmed this view in CRP (PD) No. 357 of 2004 on 6-1-2005, stating that the appellants’ rights could not exceed those of their vendors. The appellants then filed the present civil appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether purchasers of undivided shares pendente lite are “necessary and proper” parties to an ongoing partition suit.
- Whether the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act bars such purchasers from being impleaded in the suit.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court began by reproducing Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, emphasizing that transfers pending litigation cannot “affect the rights of any other party” to the suit. The Court then reasoned as follows:
- The appellants admittedly purchased only the undivided interests of some co-sharers (Respondents 2, 3, 4, and 6).
- The first respondent’s right to seek partition of his own undivided share remains unaffected by these transfers; hence, no prejudice is caused to him by the purchasers’ presence in the suit.
- Purchasers pendente lite are entitled to whatever rights their vendors possessed. To “work out the equity” of those rights at the stage of the final decree, their participation in the suit is necessary.
- Therefore, the appellants qualify as “necessary and proper parties” under procedural law and should be impleaded.
Accordingly, the Court found that both the trial court and the High Court erred in refusing impleadment based solely on lis pendens.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The appeal is allowed. The Supreme Court (1) sets aside the High Court’s order, (2) allows the impleadment application, directing that the appellants be added as Defendants 7, 8, and 9, (3) nullifies the preliminary decree passed in the appellants’ absence, and (4) restores OS No. 82 of 2004 to file with a mandate that the trial court dispose of the suit on merits within six months, after permitting the newly added defendants to file written statements and after framing necessary issues.
Implications: The decision confirms that transferees pendente lite of undivided shares in a partition suit are entitled to be impleaded so that equitable interests can be addressed in the final decree. The ruling primarily affects the parties to the litigation and does not set out a new precedent beyond applying Section 52 in the context of necessary-party analysis.
Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, J.— Leave granted.
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 CRP (PD) No. 357 of 2004. We have heard Mr V. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr R. Nedumaran, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
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 OS No. 82 of 2004. According to the 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 value and are entitled to alienors' share in equity and, therefore, they are the necessary parties for effective adjudication of the dispute in OS No. 82 of 2004. The 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 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 court below. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have come before this Court.
4. 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 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 in 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 party thereto under the 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 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 been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been 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.”
5. Section 52 deals with a transfer of property pending suit. In the instant case, the appellants have admittedly purchased the undivided shares of Respondents 2, 3, 4 and 6. It is not in dispute that the first respondent P. Mohan has got an 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. Admittedly, the appellants, having purchased the property from the other co-sharers, in our opinion, are entitled to come on record in order to work 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.
6. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court and order the application for impleadment filed by the appellants herein and array them as party Defendants 7, 8 and 9 in the suit. The appellants will now be at liberty to file the written statements in the pending suit.
7. In view of the order now passed by this Court, the preliminary decree 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.
8. The civil appeal stands allowed on the above terms. No costs.
Alert