Introduction:

The case titled “Yogesh Goyanka versus Govind & Ors” revolved around significant legal principles, including the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the rights of transferees who acquire property during the pendency of litigation. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma addressed the intricacies of these legal doctrines while reversing the High Court’s findings. The Court reiterated that a registered sale deed executed during the pendency of a suit is not void and emphasized the possibility of impleadment for the transferee.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellant, Yogesh Goyanka, purchased the property in question while litigation was pending. He sought impleadment in the ongoing suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), arguing that as the registered owner of the property, he had a legitimate interest in the litigation. Goyanka contended that the doctrine of lis pendens does not render transfers void but merely subordinates the transferee’s rights to the outcome of the pending litigation. He emphasized that his purchase was made after paying due consideration, and he sought to protect his title against potential disturbances from the original parties. Goyanka argued that the High Court erred in denying his impleadment solely based on his knowledge of the pending litigation.

The respondents, represented by Govind and others, opposed the appellant’s plea for impleadment. They argued that the sale deed executed during the pendency of the suit was not bona fide as Goyanka was aware of the ongoing litigation. The respondents contended that the doctrine of lis pendens should prevent the transferee from being impleaded, as it would complicate the litigation and prejudice the original parties. They argued that allowing Goyanka’s impleadment would undermine the purpose of lis pendens, which is to maintain the status quo of the property during litigation and prevent transfers that could affect the court’s eventual decision.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court, in its judgment authored by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, clarified the scope and application of the doctrine of lis pendens. The Court stated that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not render transfers made during the pendency of a suit 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 issue.

The Court highlighted that there is no absolute bar on the impleadment of transferees who acquire property pendente lite. The transferee’s knowledge of the pending litigation does not preclude them from seeking impleadment to protect their interests, especially when there is a risk that the transferor may not defend the title adequately or could collude with the opposing party.

The judgment emphasized that the High Court’s reasoning was flawed in using Section 52 to nullify the registered sale deed and denying the appellant’s impleadment. The Court noted that the law on impleadment has evolved to allow subsequent transferees to defend their interests, recognizing the possibility that the transferor may fail to protect the title or collude with the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s findings, allowing Yogesh Goyanka’s impleadment in the underlying suit. The Court concluded that the appellant, having acquired an interest in the subject land through a registered sale deed, should be entitled to protect his interests in the litigation.