Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: IV,52

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 107,115,146,I,10,XXII,10

(a)    Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S.52---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.107, 115 & 146 & ,O.I, R.10 & O.XXII, R.10---Alienation of suit property to subsequent purchaser/vendee during pendency of appeal---Subsequent purchaser/vendee claiming impleadment in appellate proceedings---Legality---Lis pendens, doctrine of---Applicability and scope---Rule of lis pendens cannot preclude a subsequent vendee from being impleaded as a party to the pending proceedings---Facts in brevity were that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration which was decreed in their favour, while a similar suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed---During the pendency of respondents' appeal, respondent No.3 (subsequent vendee) purchased the suit property from respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and moved an application under O. I R. 10, C.P.C. to be impleaded as an appellant---Petitioner opposed the said application by invoking the doctrine of lis pendens under S.52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, arguing that the purchaser was neither a necessary nor proper party---Appellate court allowed impleadment of respondent No. 3 (subsequent vendee)---Substantial question of law placed for determination before the High Court was as to "Whether the subsequent purchaser of the suit property, having acquired the same during pendency of litigation, could be impleaded as a party to the proceedings under O. I R. 10, C.P.C. despite being bound by the doctrine of lispendens?"---Held: By virtue of S.146 of the C.P.C. where any proceeding might be taken or application made by or against any person, then the proceeding might be taken or the application might be made by or against any person claiming under him---Furthermore, O. I of the C.P.C. dealt with the parties to suits and sub-rule (2) of R. 10 of O. I of the C.P.C. postulated that the court could at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as might have appeared to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name,…