H. ANJANAPPA & ORS. versus A. PRABHAKAR & ORS.

H. ANJANAPPA & ORS. versus A. PRABHAKAR & ORS.

The High Court erred in condoning the unexplained delay of 586 days and in granting leave to appeal to the subsequent purchasers; a transferee pendente lite is not entitled as of right to be impleaded or to file an appeal without leave, and whether leave should be granted under Order I Rule 10 or Order XXII Rule 10 CPC depends on the facts and material on record; transfers pendente lite are subservient to the pending litigation under Section 52 TP Act and a transferee who does not seek leave remains bound by the litigation outcome.

Parties
Appellants/plaintiffs: H. Anjanappa & Ors.; Respondents: A. Prabhakar & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From the High Court of Karnataka Judgment and Order Dated 16.11.2022 in IA Nos. 1 and 3 of 2018 in Regular First Appeal No. 1303 of 2018
Outcome
Appeals allowed; impugned High Court order set aside
Legal Topics
Transferee Pendente Lite, Lis Pendens Purchaser, Impleadment, Leave to Appeal, Order I Rule 10 CPC, Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, Section 52 Transfer of Property Act, Section 146 CPC, Condonation of Delay, Person Aggrieved
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Limitation Act, 1963 Transferee Pendente Lite Lis Pendens Purchaser Impleadment Leave to Appeal Order I Rule 10 CPC +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H. Anjanappa & Ors.

Appellants/plaintiffs

A. Prabhakar & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal From the High Court of Karnataka Judgment and Order Dated 16.11.2022 in IA Nos. 1 and 3 of 2018 in Regular First Appeal No. 1303 of 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a transferee pendente lite has a right to be impleaded in a pending suit by seeking leave to appeal and whether he is bound by the decree if not impleaded
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in condoning a delay of 586 days and granting leave to appeal to subsequent purchasers

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in condoning the unexplained delay of 586 days and in granting leave to appeal to the subsequent purchasers; a transferee pendente lite is not entitled as of right to be impleaded or to file an appeal without leave, and whether leave should be granted under Order I Rule 10 or Order XXII Rule 10 CPC depends on the facts and material on record; transfers pendente lite are subservient to the pending litigation under Section 52 TP Act and a transferee who does not seek leave remains bound by the litigation outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; impugned High Court order set aside

Orders

  • Impugned order dated 16.11.2022 of the High Court in IA Nos. 1 & 3 of 2018 in RFA No.1303/2018 is set aside
  • Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled as of right to be impleaded or to prosecute an appeal without leave; if they wish to pursue claims against their vendor (Respondent No.7/Defendant No.3) they may seek appropriate legal remedies