Civil litigation often raises an important procedural issue:
Can a person who acquires property during pendency of litigation be impleaded as a party to the suit?
The Supreme Court answered this question in Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon (2005) and clarified the legal position regarding transferee pendente lite, Order I Rule 10 CPC, Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, and the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The judgment remains one of the leading authorities on impleadment of subsequent purchasers in pending litigation.
Introduction
In property disputes, it is common for a party to transfer disputed property while litigation is already pending before a court.
This creates an important legal question:
Can a purchaser during litigation become a party to the pending proceedings?
The Supreme Court in this case clarified:
- Rights of a purchaser during litigation
- Scope of impleadment under CPC
- Judicial discretion in addition of parties
- Applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens
- Whether a transferee pendente lite can protect acquired interests in court proceedings
Case Details
Case Name
Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon
Year
2005
Citation
(2005) 11 SCC 403 | AIR 2005 SC 2209
Court
Supreme Court of India
Relevant Provisions
Order I Rule 10 CPC
Order XXII Rule 10 CPC
Related Law
Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Doctrine of Lis Pendens)
Subject Matter
Impleadment of Transferee Pendente Lite
Facts of the Case
A property dispute was pending before the court in second appeal proceedings.
During pendency of litigation, the appellants acquired interest in the disputed property from one of the parties to the suit.
After purchase, they sought impleadment and substitution in proceedings, contending that:
- They had acquired legal interest in the disputed property
- Outcome of litigation would directly affect their rights
- Their presence was necessary for protecting acquired interests
The High Court rejected their application for substitution.
The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court.
Also Read: Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (2010)
Issues Before the Court
Issue 1
Whether a purchaser during pendency of litigation can seek impleadment?
Issue 2
Whether a transferee pendente lite becomes representative-in-interest of transferor?
Issue 3
Whether impleadment of such transferee is automatic or discretionary?
Issue 4
What is the effect of the doctrine of lis pendens on such transfers?
Judgment of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that:
A transferee pendente lite is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he derives title.
The Court observed that:
Such a transferee is vitally interested in the outcome of litigation because any decree passed may directly affect acquired rights.
The Court further clarified:
Though a transferee pendente lite is not entitled to impleadment as a matter of absolute right, courts ordinarily permit impleadment to protect substantial interests.
The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial discretion must be exercised carefully depending upon facts and circumstances of each case.
Doctrine of Lis Pendens
The judgment discussed:
Lis Pendens
Under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act:
Transfer of property during pendency of litigation does not become void.
However:
Such transfer remains subject to the final outcome of pending proceedings.
Meaning:
A purchaser during litigation buys property:
At his own risk and subject to court decision.
Meaning of Transferee Pendente Lite
Transferee Pendente Lite
A person who:
Purchases or acquires interest in property during pendency of litigation.
The Court observed that such purchaser:
- Derives rights from transferor
- Is bound by litigation outcome
- May seek participation to protect legal interests
Legal Principles Established
1. Transferee Pendente Lite Is Representative-in-Interest
The Court held:
A purchaser during litigation represents the interest of transferor.
Hence:
Such person may be impleaded in proceedings.
2. Impleadment Is Not Automatic
The Court clarified:
No absolute right exists to become party.
Instead:
Court exercises judicial discretion based on necessity and justice.
3. Substantial Interest Test
The Court emphasized:
Interest of transferee must be substantial and not merely peripheral.
Courts must carefully examine facts before impleadment.
4. Lis Pendens Protects Judicial Process
The doctrine ensures:
Rights of parties are not defeated by transfers during litigation.
Why This Case is Important?
This judgment is important because it:
- Explains Order I Rule 10 CPC
- Clarifies Order XXII Rule 10 CPC
- Defines rights of transferee pendente lite
- Explains doctrine of lis pendens
- Clarifies judicial discretion in impleadment
The judgment is highly relevant in:
- Property disputes
- Specific performance suits
- CPC studies
- Transfer of Property Act discussions
- Judiciary examinations
Key Takeaways
| Concept | Principle |
|---|---|
| Transferee Pendente Lite | Purchaser during litigation |
| Lis Pendens | Transfer subject to suit outcome |
| Representative-in-Interest | Purchaser represents transferor |
| Impleadment | Not automatic but discretionary |
| Judicial Test | Interest must be substantial |
Conclusion
Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon (2005) remains a landmark judgment on impleadment of transferee pendente lite under CPC. The Supreme Court clarified that although a purchaser during litigation is bound by the doctrine of lis pendens, courts may ordinarily allow such person to participate in proceedings to protect substantial legal interests.
The judgment continues to guide courts in balancing procedural fairness, property rights, and judicial efficiency while deciding impleadment applications.
Join Lexibal’s WhatsApp Community for latest updates
