COURTKUTCHEHRY SPECIAL SERIES ON LANDMARKS JUDGEMENTS ON WILLS, CODICIL & PROBATE
Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh & Others: Supreme Court Bars Purchasers from Title Suit
Alienation During Litigation Held Void Under Section 52 TPA
Trial Court’s Order Restored, Appeal Allowed
By Vishwas Kumar
New Delhi: March 27, 2026:
On 2 August 1996, the Supreme Court of India in Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh & Others (Civil Appeal No. 10663 of 1996; (1996) 08 SC CK 0092) delivered a significant ruling on the scope of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA). The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik held that purchasers of property during the pendency of a title suit based on a will could not be added as defendants, as such alienations were void against the appellant.
The dispute arose when certain purchasers sought impleadment in an ongoing title suit concerning property rights claimed under a will. The trial court had refused their addition, recognizing that any transfer during litigation was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, which prevents parties from defeating the outcome of a pending suit by alienating property. However, the appellate court allowed their impleadment, leading to further challenge.
The Supreme Court clarified that such purchasers were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Since the alienation was void against the appellant under Section 52 TPA, their presence in the proceedings was legally irrelevant. The Court emphasized that allowing impleadment would unnecessarily complicate the litigation and dilute the principle that rights in dispute cannot be altered mid-suit through transfers.
By restoring the trial court’s order and allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court reinforced the sanctity of pending litigation and the doctrine of lis pendens. The ruling serves as a reminder that property transactions undertaken during the pendency of suits are inherently precarious and cannot confer enforceable rights against parties already engaged in litigation.
For More, Read Here the Summary of the Judgement from the Book: WILL WRITING SIMPLIFIED, read below or open page no 436, Chapter 14.1 in the book. (Online book purchase link available here on: Buy online: Amazon | Flipkart
Case Summary : Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh & Others.
Court : Supreme Court of India
Citations : (1996) 08 SC CK 0092: Civil Appeal No. 10663 of 1996.
Link : https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/683497/sarvinder-singh-vs-dalip-singh-and-others/
Decided on : 02 August 1996
Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik. (Division Bench)
Relevant Paragraphs : Para Nos. 3–7
1. Facts of the Case:
The appellant filed Suit No. 253-1 before the Sub-Judge, Ferozepur, seeking declaration of ownership over the suit property based on a registered Will dated 26 May 1952 executed by his mother, Smt. Hira Devi. An earlier decree dated 29 March 1974 had already declared his ownership. During pendency of the second suit, the defendants—sons of Rajender Kaur (one of Hira Devi’s daughters)—sold the same property by registered sale deeds dated 2 and 12 December 1991 to the present respondents. The appellant sought an interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC, which was initially granted but later vacated. The purchasers applied for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The trial court rejected the impleadment as they were neither necessary nor proper parties. On revision, the High Court directed their addition as defendants. Hence, the appeal by special leave.
2. Law Points Involved:
(i). Doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
(ii). Scope of impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
(iii). Determination of “necessary” and “proper” parties in a declaratory suit founded on title through a Will.
3. Acts/Provisions/Articles Referred:
(i). Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 1 Rule 10; Order 39 Rule 1
(ii). Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 52
4. Judgments Referred:
(i). New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumkum Mittal & Ors., (1993) 11 SC CK 0056.
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/676741/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-appellant-hash-kumkum-mittal-and-others-respondent]
(ii). Ramesh H. Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1992) 03 SC CK 0022.
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/675634/ramesh-hirachand-kundanmal-appellant-hash-municipal-corporation-of-greater-bombay-and-others-res]
5. Obiter Dicta:
The Supreme Court observed that purchasers pendente lite cannot challenge the legality or validity of a Will which had already formed the basis of an earlier decree between the same parties. The bar under Section 52 TPA prohibits such transfers without court permission, rendering the transferees bound by the outcome of the pending litigation.
6. Ratio Decidendi:
Transferees pendente lite are not “necessary” or “proper” parties in a declaratory suit founded on a Will, as their rights are wholly dependent upon the outcome of the suit. Their addition would not aid effective adjudication since the alienation itself is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 TPA.
7. Final Ruling:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order. The impleadment of purchasers was held impermissible. The petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC stood dismissed. No costs awarded.
8. Gist Highlighting Dispute and Final Decision:
The case revolved around whether purchasers of property during pendency of a title suit based on a Will could be added as defendants. The Supreme Court held they were neither necessary nor proper parties since the alienation was void against the appellant under Section 52 TPA. The appeal was allowed, restoring the trial court’s order refusing impleadment.
Read full Judgement Here:
Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh & Others.
Supreme Court of India
(1996) 08 SC CK 0092: Civil Appeal No. 10663 of 1996.
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/683497/sarvinder-singh-vs-dalip-singh-and-others/
You Can Also Purchase the Book from here on: Buy online: Amazon | Flipkart
OUR RECOMMENDATION: Check out 123 Key Judgements, as highlighted in the book, WILL WRITING SIMPLIFIED, for the quick research and reference purposes. Click the link here: https://www.courtkutchehry.com/pages/blog/123-supreme-court-judgments-on-wills/
🔑 Keywords for SEO & Quick Search
• Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh Supreme Court case
• Civil Appeal No. 10663 of 1996 judgment
• Section 52 TPA lis pendens India
• Supreme Court property dispute 1996
•
K. Ramaswamy G.B. Pattanaik judgment
• Purchasers during litigation impleadment case
• Transfer of Property Act Supreme Court ruling