Yogesh Goyanka vs. Govind [July 10, 2024]
Case Summary: Yogesh Goyanka vs. Govind & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7305 of 2024)
Date of Judgment: July 10, 2024
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma
Background
The dispute originated from a civil suit filed by the plaintiffs (Respondents 1–17) seeking a permanent injunction and a declaration that certain release deeds and a sale deed concerning agricultural land in Hinduan City, Rajasthan, were null and void. The land had been transferred through release deeds to Respondents 18–20 and subsequently sold to Respondent 21. During the pendency of this litigation, Respondent 21 executed a registered sale deed in favor of the appellant, Yogesh Goyanka, who purchased the land with full knowledge of the ongoing suit.
After the purchase, Goyanka sought to be impleaded as a party-defendant in the ongoing suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to protect his interests. The Additional District Judge (ADJ) and the High Court dismissed his application, citing the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which renders transfers of property during the pendency of a suit voidable.
Legal Issues
Doctrine of Lis Pendens:
Whether a registered sale deed executed during the pendency of a suit renders the transaction null and void under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Impleadment of Pendente Lite Transferee:
Whether a transferee pendente lite (purchaser during the pendency of litigation) can be impleaded as a party to the ongoing suit to protect their interests.
Supreme Court's Findings
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, made the following key observations:
Doctrine of Lis Pendens:
The Court clarified that the doctrine of lis pendens does not render all transfers pendente lite void ab initio. Instead, it makes the rights arising from such transfers subject to the rights of the parties to the pending litigation and any directions the court may pass. Therefore, a registered sale deed executed during the pendency of a suit does not automatically render it null and void.
Impleadment of Transferee Pendente Lite:
The Court held that a transferee pendente lite has a legal interest in the property and may be impleaded as a party to the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The impleadment is discretionary but should be allowed to protect the transferee's rights, especially when there is a possibility of collusion between the original parties or when the transferor fails to defend the suit.
Equity and Justice:
The Court emphasized that the principles of equity and justice require that all parties with a stake in the property be given an opportunity to present their case. Denying impleadment to a bona fide transferee could lead to injustice, particularly if the original parties are not adequately defending the suit.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and the ADJ, and directed that Yogesh Goyanka be impleaded as a party-defendant in the underlying suit. The judgment reinforces the legal position that a transferee pendente lite is a proper party to the suit and should ordinarily be impleaded to protect their interests, subject to the outcome of the litigation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments