2005 (1) TMI 728 - HC - Companies Law

Court Upholds Dismissal of Impleadment Application in Partition Suit Due to Lis Pendens

Dhanalakshmi and Ors. Versus P. Mohan and Ors.

Dhanalakshmi and Ors. Versus P. Mohan and Ors. - TMI Issues:- Dismissal of application to implead in a partition suit- Claim of being bona fide purchasers for value- Application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act- Impact of lis pendens on property transactions during legal proceedings- Interpretation of relevant case laws in similar contextsIssue 1: Dismissal of Application to Implead in a Partition SuitThe petitioners sought to implead themselves in a partition suit as bonafide purchasers for value. They argued that since there was no dispute regarding the shares, they should be allowed to participate in the proceedings. The trial court, however, dismissed their application citing the doctrine of lis pendens as the sales in their favor were during the pendency of the suit. The petitioners contended that they had purchased the properties before being informed of the suit, and had made genuine inquiries before the transactions.Issue 2: Claim of Being Bona Fide Purchasers for ValueThe respondents opposed the petitioners' claim of being bona fide purchasers, highlighting a previous court auction where a relative of one petitioner had acquired the same property. This auction sale was later set aside due to fraud, casting doubt on the petitioners' claim. The respondents argued that the petitioners' purchases were affected by lis pendens, making Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applicable to their case.Issue 3: Application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property ActSection 52 prohibits the transfer of property involved in legal proceedings without court authorization, to safeguard the rights of all parties. The court emphasized that the property purchases by the petitioners during the suit's pendency fell under lis pendens, restricting their rights. Previous case laws, including Raghavan v. M. Krishnammal, underscored the importance of adhering to Section 52's provisions to prevent prejudicing other parties' rights.Issue 4: Impact of Lis Pendens on Property Transactions During Legal ProceedingsThe court examined the implications of lis pendens on property transactions during legal proceedings. It reiterated that any transfer during this period must comply with Section 52 to ensure fairness and prevent undermining the litigation process. The judgments cited by the respondents emphasized the binding nature of decrees on transferees affected by lis pendens, reinforcing the need for court approval before such transactions.Issue 5: Interpretation of Relevant Case Laws in Similar ContextsThe court analyzed various case laws, such as G. Krishnamoorthy v. Sukumar and others, to interpret the application of Section 52 and lis pendens in partition suits. These precedents highlighted the statutory bar on property alienation during legal proceedings and the necessity of court permission for any transfers affecting the rights of other parties. The court stressed that each case's outcome depended on its unique circumstances, emphasizing the need for careful consideration in impleading parties during pending suits.In conclusion, the court dismissed the revision, upholding the trial court's decision to deny the petitioners' application for impleadment. The court found that the petitioners' purchases were tainted by lis pendens and could not claim superior rights over their vendors. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and respecting the legal principles governing property transactions during ongoing legal proceedings.