Case at a Glance
A family partition suit over a house in Paschim Puri, Delhi had already produced a preliminary decree giving seven heirs a one-seventh share each when one heir, in whose name the property had been converted to freehold, sold it to an outsider for ₹13.4 lakh in 2012. The buyer later lost her right to lead evidence for non-appearance and the trial court held she had not proved she was a bona fide purchaser. Dismissing her appeal, the Delhi High Court held that under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act a transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree, and her good faith is irrelevant.
The property at Paschim Puri was bought in 1978 in the name of Smt. Kaushlya Devi, who died intestate in March 2004. A family arrangement that month recorded that one heir (Respondent No. 1) had paid ₹2,85,000 for construction, to be reimbursed, and that the property would be divided equally among the heirs. The heirs then sued for partition, possession and refund, and on 1 September 2005 the trial court restrained defendant no. 1 from alienating the property. On 9 February 2011 a first preliminary decree declared each of seven parties entitled to a one-seventh share.
In May 2012 the DDA converted the leasehold to freehold in defendant no. 1’s name, and on 22 May 2012 he sold the property to the appellant by a registered sale deed for ₹13,40,000. She appeared in the suit in August 2012 and was impleaded in 2015. An additional issue was framed on whether she was a bona fide purchaser, but after repeated non-appearance her right to lead evidence was closed on 27 February 2018. The trial court decided the issue against her, and on 8 May 2018 passed a final decree holding the property incapable of division, so that only the sale proceeds would be distributed.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a person who buys property during a pending partition suit, after a preliminary decree has declared the heirs’ shares, defeat the decree by claiming to be a bona fide purchaser, or challenge the decree after her evidence was closed for non-appearance?
Lis pendens, finality of preliminary decrees and sufficient cause
Justice Amit Bansal, assisted by an amicus curiae, found that the appellant showed no sufficient cause for her non-appearance on several dates in early 2018 and never applied under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC; relying on G.P. Shrivastava v. R.K. Raizada & Ors., (2000) 03 SC CK 0003, (2000) 3 SCC 54, the ex parte decree could not be set aside without sufficient cause. The Court also rejected her complaint that the trial court should have waited for a pending transfer petition: two had been dismissed before the second preliminary decree, and the third had not been brought to the trial court’s attention.
On merits, the Court held that a transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree, and under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act good faith is irrelevant once the sale occurs during the suit, following Shingara Singh v. Daljit Singh & Anr., 2024 INSC 770 — “it would not matter if the purchaser is a bona fide purchaser or not.” Because the sale came after the first preliminary decree, her title was subservient to the one-seventh shares declared in it. Nor could she attack the preliminary decrees, which she never challenged even after being impleaded: citing Venkata Reddy & Ors. v. Pethi Reddy, the Court reiterated that “A preliminary decree passed, whether it is in a mortgage suit or a partition suit, is not a tentative decree” and an unappealed preliminary decree cannot be questioned in an appeal from the final decree.
What the Court Actually Held
- The appellant showed no sufficient cause for non-appearance, so there was no ground to interfere with the order of 27 February 2018 closing her evidence.
- A purchaser during the pendency of a suit is bound by its outcome under Section 52 TPA, whether or not she bought in good faith.
- Having bought after the first preliminary decree, her title was subservient to the one-seventh shares declared in it, and the unchallenged preliminary decrees had attained finality.
- The appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8 May 2018 was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It is a clear warning to property buyers that a pending family suit can override a registered sale deed.
- It applies the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Shingara Singh that bona fides do not protect a pendente lite purchaser.
- It underlines that preliminary partition decrees must be challenged in time or become final.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Buyers and Heirs
- Before buying, search for pending suits and injunctions on the property, not just title documents and conversion deeds.
- A registered sale deed and freehold conversion do not protect you from a decree in a pending partition suit.
- Heirs with a declared share can enforce it against an outsider who bought during the suit.
For Counsel
- A pendente lite buyer must appear diligently and, if proceeded ex parte, move under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC with sufficient cause.
- Challenge a preliminary decree directly; it cannot be reopened in an appeal against the final decree.
- Bring pending transfer petitions to the trial court’s notice on record rather than relying on them later.
Key Takeaways
- Section 52 TPA binds anyone who buys property during a pending suit to the decree passed in it.
- Good faith or payment of consideration does not help a transferee pendente lite.
- An unappealed preliminary decree in a partition suit is conclusive on the matters it decides.
- Repeated non-appearance without sufficient cause can cost a party the right to lead evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is lis pendens?
It is the rule in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act that property in dispute in a pending suit cannot be transferred so as to affect the rights of the other parties under the eventual decree.
Does it help if I bought in good faith without knowing about the suit?
According to this judgment, following Shingara Singh v. Daljit Singh, it does not: a purchaser during the suit is bound by the decree whether bona fide or not.
What happened to the property here?
The final decree held the property incapable of physical division, so only the sale proceeds are to be distributed according to the shares declared in the preliminary decrees.
Conclusion
The judgment is a textbook application of lis pendens: once heirs had a decree declaring their shares, a later sale by one heir to an outsider could not dilute those shares. The buyer’s remedy, if any, lies against her seller, not against the decree-holders.
Practical takeaway: Due diligence for any property purchase in Delhi must include a check for pending suits and injunctions; a sale during litigation is taken subject to the result.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com