{"id":2227,"date":"2024-08-13T18:05:30","date_gmt":"2024-08-13T12:35:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=2227"},"modified":"2024-08-13T18:05:30","modified_gmt":"2024-08-13T12:35:30","slug":"supreme-court-holds-that-doctrine-of-lis-pendens-does-not-prevent-a-property-purchaser-from-seeking-impleadment-in-a-suit-concerning-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-holds-that-doctrine-of-lis-pendens-does-not-prevent-a-property-purchaser-from-seeking-impleadment-in-a-suit-concerning-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court holds that doctrine of lis pendens does not prevent a property purchaser from seeking impleadment in a suit concerning it"},"content":{"rendered":"

YOGESH GOYANKA \u00a0<\/strong>[APPELLANT(S)] Vs.\u00a0 <\/strong>GOVIND & ORS. [<\/strong>RESPONDENT(S)]<\/h1>\n

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 7305 OF 2024<\/p>\n

(2JB, VIKRAM NATH and SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA JJ., delivered by SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> 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 \u2018Impugned Order\u2019). 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 \u2018CPC\u2019) vide SLP (C) No. 10005 of 2022 Page 2 of 9 order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge No. 1, Hindaun City (the \u2018ADJ\u2019).<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Does doctrine of lis pendens<\/em> prevent a property purchaser from seeking impleadment in a suit concerning it?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court allowed the present appeal and held that, \u201cin 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

YOGESH GOYANKA \u00a0[APPELLANT(S)] Vs.\u00a0 GOVIND & ORS. [RESPONDENT(S)] CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 7305 OF 2024 (2JB, VIKRAM NATH and SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA JJ., delivered by SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.)   Facts: 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2229,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2227","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2227","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2227"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2227\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2231,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2227\/revisions\/2231"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2229"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2227"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2227"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2227"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}