H. Anjanappa vs. A. Prabhakar
Citation: 2025 INSC 121; Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan
Background
The case revolved around a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement concerning agricultural land in Karnataka. The plaintiffs (Anjanappa and others) had entered into an agreement to purchase the property from the original owner, Smt. Daisy Shanthappa. During the pendency of the suit, despite an injunction, a portion of the property was sold to third parties (Respondents 1 and 2, i.e., subsequent purchasers), who later sold it further. The trial court decreed specific performance in favor of the plaintiffs. The subsequent purchasers, who were not parties to the suit, sought to be impleaded, but their application was rejected and not appealed. After the decree, they sought leave from the High Court to appeal the decree, which was granted after condoning a significant delay. The plaintiffs challenged this before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
Whether a pendente lite transferee (a person who purchases property during the pendency of a suit) has an inherent right to be impleaded or to appeal against a decree without being a party to the suit.
The application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (doctrine of lis pendens).
Under what circumstances can a stranger to a suit seek leave to appeal in property disputes.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
No Inherent Right for Pendente Lite Transferees:
The Court held that a pendente lite transferee does not have an automatic right to be impleaded in a suit or to appeal against the decree unless exceptional circumstances exist where their rights are directly and prejudicially affected. The injury complained of must not be remote or indirect.
Bound by Decree:
Such transferees are bound by the outcome of the litigation due to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. They cannot challenge the correctness of the decree in subsequent proceedings if they did not seek to be properly impleaded or appeal the rejection of their impleadment application.
Leave to Appeal:
The Supreme Court clarified that a stranger may seek leave to appeal only if they are bound by the decree and could not have attacked its correctness otherwise. However, in this case, Respondents 1 and 2 had failed to appeal the rejection of their impleadment and waited for years before seeking leave to appeal, making their challenge untenable.
Condonation of Delay:
The Court found the High Court erred in condoning the protracted delay and granting leave to appeal to the subsequent purchasers, as they were not parties to the suit and the issue of their impleadment had attained finality.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order granting leave to appeal and condoning delay for the subsequent purchasers, and upheld the decree for specific performance in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court advised the subsequent purchasers to seek remedy against the sellers if they felt aggrieved.
Significance
This judgment reaffirms the doctrine of lis pendens and clarifies that pendente lite transferees cannot bypass procedural limitations to challenge decrees unless directly and prejudicially affected, and only with the court’s leave in exceptional cases. It strengthens the finality of litigation and procedural discipline in property disputes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments