Lis pendens transferee rights: sale in breach of injunction is not void and impleadment was permitted under CPC principles.

A transfer of property made during the pendency of a suit gives the transferee an interest that can be worked out in the proceeding, and such transferee may seek impleadment under Order 22 Rule 10(1) CPC. A sale made in breach of an injunction order is not a nullity merely because it contravened the restraint; the consequence lies in penal or coercive action for disobedience, not automatic invalidity of the sale. The position differs from attachment, where Section 64 CPC expressly voids private transfers against enforceable claims. The transferees were therefore entitled to be impleaded as defendants.

---

---

Issues: Whether a transferee who purchased property during the pendency of a suit in violation of an injunction order could be impleaded as a defendant under Order 22, Rule 10(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: A transfer made during the pendency of a suit creates an interest which may be worked out in the suit, and the transferee is entitled to seek leave to continue the proceeding against the party upon whom the interest has devolved. A transfer in breach of an injunction order is not treated as a nullity merely because it was made contrary to the restraint order. The consequence of disobedience of a temporary injunction lies in the penal or coercive consequences attached to breach, not in automatic avoidance of the completed sale. The position is different from an attachment, where Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 expressly renders private transfers void against claims enforceable under the attachment.

Conclusion: The sale in favour of the petitioners was not a nullity, and they were entitled to be impleaded as defendants under Order 22, Rule 10(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---