Lis Pendens Doctrine Prevents Impleadment of Subsequent Transferee Aware of Suit.

Sambanduram (N) Heikham (O) Tilotama Devi (original Plaintiff/Petitioner), now represented by her Legal Representatives (LRs), filed a Civil Revision Petition (CRP) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The CRP challenged an order dated 06.05.2024, passed in Judl. Misc. Case No. 127 of 2023, by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Thoubal, in Original Suit No. 18 of 2013 (now renumbered as Original Suit No. 20 of 2014).

The Original Suit, filed in 2013, sought a declaration of title over suit land, a declaration that the western boundary in a 1st Gift Deed (Regd. No. 535 of 2012) was wrong, and that the 1st Gift Deed was not binding on the plaintiff.

The 1st defendant was the donor and the 2nd defendant was the donee in the 1st Gift Deed.

During the pendency of this suit, Moirangthem Robindrokumar Singh, the blood brother of the 2nd defendant, filed an application (Judl. Misc. Case No. 127 of 2023) under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC to be impleaded as the 3rd defendant.

His plea was based on a 2nd Gift Deed dated 12.08.2022 (Regd. No. 1031 of 2022), executed by the 2nd defendant (his sister), conveying part of the suit land to him.

The plaintiff opposed this impleadment application, arguing that the 2nd Gift Deed was swept by the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (T.P. Act), as the transfer occurred during the pendency of the suit.

The Trial Court, in its order dated 06.05.2024, allowed the impleadment plea, adding Moirangthem Robindrokumar Singh as the 3rd defendant, without advertence to Section 52 of the T.P. Act.

The alienee (Moirangthem Robindrokumar Singh) was admittedly aware of the suit from its very beginning.

Whether the Trial Court erred in allowing the impleadment of the 3rd defendant, Moirangthem Robindrokumar Singh, under Order I Rule 10 CPC, despite the transfer of property occurring during the pendency of the suit and being subject to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?

The Court applied the rule of lis pendens as enshrined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which stipulates that any transfer of immovable property during the pendency of a suit or proceeding in which a right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, cannot affect the rights of any other party under any decree or order that may be made therein, except under the authority of the court.

It also relied on the principle established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh & ors. (1996 (5) SCC 539), which holds that when an alienation is covered by the doctrine of lis pendens, the alienee cannot be considered either a necessary or a proper party to the suit.

Additionally, the Court referred to Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd. & Ors. (AIR 13 SC 2389) to underline that the doctrine of lis pendens is necessary for the administration of justice to ensure that court decisions bind not only litigants but also those who derive title pendente lite.

The High Court found that the Trial Court had completely ignored the plaintiff's objection based on Section 52 of the T.P. Act, despite it being specifically raised in the objections.

The 2nd Gift Deed, which formed the basis of the impleadment, was executed on 12.08.2022, almost a decade after the suit was filed in 2013, clearly falling within the pendency of the suit.

The Court noted that the donor (2nd defendant) and donee (Moirangthem Robindrokumar Singh) were blood siblings, and the donee admitted knowledge of the suit's pendency from its inception.

The impleadment application was filed only after the execution of the 2nd Gift Deed, at an advanced stage of the suit, after completion of pleadings and framing of issues.

The High Court emphasized that the doctrine of lis pendens prevents such transfers from affecting the rights of other parties in the suit.

The Trial Court's reliance on Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2010) 7 SCC 417, to distinguish between 'necessary' and 'proper' parties, was deemed misplaced because it failed to address the applicability of Section 52 of the T.P. Act in the specific context of the case.

The High Court reasoned that since the transfer was pendente lite, the alienee could not be a necessary or proper party, making the Trial Court's decision to implead him erroneous.

Accordingly, the captioned Civil Revision Petition was allowed.

The impugned order of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Thoubal, in Judl. Misc. Case No. 127 of 2023, was set aside.

The 3rd defendant was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties, and necessary amendments to the pleadings were to be carried out in the Trial Court.

The said suit was directed to proceed from the stage it stood immediately prior to 06.05.2024.

There was no order as to costs.