Buyers during pending land case allowed as co-appellants — Patna High Court, 2024

Case Background

A title dispute relating to land measuring 8 katha 3 dhur under Khata No. 144, Survey Plot No. 363 (Part), Thana No. 23, Mauza Saguna, Danapur, Patna led to a long chain of proceedings.

In 2011, the original plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 112 of 2011 (Smt. Sudha Devi and others vs. Sri Jugeshwar Nath Srivastava) before the Sub-Judge, Danapur. They sought declaration of their title, removal of alleged encroachment of about 1.5 katha, and demolition of construction of house/shops said to have been raised by the sole defendant over the suit land.

The defendant appeared and filed a written statement, contesting the claim and praying for dismissal of the suit. After trial, the learned Sub-Judge dismissed the suit on 03.08.2019, refusing all reliefs to the plaintiffs.

Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 79 of 2019 before the District Judge, Patna, which was later placed before the Additional District Judge-VI, Danapur for disposal. This appeal is still pending.

Meanwhile, during the pendency of the title suit itself, the plaintiffs had sold almost the entire suit land to a group of purchasers — who later became the intervenor-petitioners in the Patna High Court. Five registered sale deeds were executed between 25.07.2011 and 10.07.2012 in favour of these purchasers and their close relatives.

Despite these sales, the plaintiffs neither disclosed these transactions to the trial court nor took steps to substitute or transpose the purchasers as parties in the title suit. Even when filing the first appeal in 2019, they did not bring these purchasers on record.

In December 2022 and January 2023, the purchasers finally moved the first appellate court through two intervention applications under Order I Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking to be added as co-appellants in the pending appeal. The sole defendant opposed the applications. On 17.01.2023, the Additional District Judge-VI, Danapur rejected both applications.

The purchasers then filed Civil Miscellaneous No. 578 of 2023 before the Patna High Court, challenging the order dated 17.01.2023 and seeking impleadment as co-appellants in the title appeal.

What the Court Examined and Decided

The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha, heard the matter on admission and decided to finally dispose of the petition.

The intervenor-petitioners argued that they had validly purchased 8 katha 3 dhur of the suit land from the plaintiffs via registered sale deeds executed during the pendency of Title Suit No. 112 of 2011. On the basis of these deeds, separate jamabandis were opened in their names and they paid rent to the State of Bihar.

They contended that, as transferees pendente lite (purchasers during ongoing litigation) and representatives-in-interest of the plaintiffs, they had acquired right, title, interest and possession over the suit property. Therefore, they were necessary parties in the pending appeal, as any decision would directly affect their rights.

They further submitted that if not impleaded as co-appellants, they would suffer irreparable loss. They alleged that the lower appellate court failed to protect their interests over the suit land while rejecting their impleadment applications on frivolous and unsustainable grounds. They also pointed out that the original plaintiffs were living outside Bihar and found it difficult to contest the appeal, making the purchasers’ participation practically necessary.

On the other side, the contesting respondent (original defendant) raised serious objections. He narrated in detail the sale transactions:

• On 25.07.2011, original plaintiff no. 1 sold 10 dhur to one of the petitioners (Shanti Singh).
• On 14.09.2011, she sold 3 katha 11 dhur 10 dhurki to three of the petitioners (Shanti Devi, Surendra Singh and Ram Bahadur Singh), cumulatively transferring 4 katha 1 dhur 10 dhurki.
• On 10.07.2012, original plaintiff no. 2 sold part of the land to the father-in-law of petitioner no. 4, and another 11 dhur 10 dhurki to petitioners nos. 2, 3 and 4.
• He also sold 1 katha 10 dhur to petitioner no. 6 and to petitioner no. 5 and another son of petitioner no. 4, making his cumulative sale 3 katha 11 dhur 10 dhurki.

Together, according to the respondent, the plaintiffs sold 7 katha 13 dhur out of the 8 katha 3 dhur that they had purchased, leaving only about 10 dhur. Yet in their plaint in Title Suit No. 112 of 2011 they claimed encroachment over 1.5 katha and remained silent about the sales.

The respondent alleged that the plaintiffs, their legal heirs and the main purchaser-petitioner (who also held a General Power of Attorney for the plaintiffs) had deliberately suppressed the sale deeds from the trial court and the appellate court. This, he argued, amounted to fraud and abuse of process. He stressed that the General Power of Attorney holder, Jang Bahadur Singh, had been actively pursuing the suit, deposing as a witness on multiple dates, yet never disclosed his own or his family’s purchases.

He further argued that:

• The sales were in violation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (doctrine of lis pendens) as no leave of court was sought.
• The purchasers, being closely related to the power of attorney holder, were fully aware of the litigation from the beginning.
• The impleadment applications filed in December 2022 and January 2023, about 11 years after the first sale, were hopelessly delayed and barred by Article 137 of the Limitation Act.
• As transferees pendente lite, they were not necessary parties; the plaintiffs could adequately represent any interest they might have.

The respondent relied on Supreme Court decisions, including Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu (AIR 2014 SC 1141), to highlight the doctrine of delay and laches, and on a Patna High Court decision in Second Appeal No. 73 of 2021, where delayed impleadment by intervenors with prior knowledge was rejected.

In reply, the petitioners argued that there was no strict limitation for adding parties where there is devolution of interest. They referred to Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, which deals with assignment or devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit, and cited Supreme Court decisions in Devendra Kumar Sarewgee & Ors. v. Purbanchal Estates (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 199 and Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 7 SCC 417.

They also reiterated that there had been no injunction in the title suit, so the plaintiffs were not barred from selling the property. They contended that other petitioners (besides the attorney-holder) could not automatically be presumed to have knowledge of the litigation and that the respondent had not shown how his rights would be prejudiced by their impleadment.

The Patna High Court then turned to the key legal question: whether the petitioners were proper and necessary parties in the pending title appeal, and whether the appellate court could add them under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

The Court reproduced Order I Rule 10(2), emphasising that a court may at any stage strike out or add parties whose presence is necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. It noted that an appeal is a continuation of the suit. It also referred to Article 137 of the Limitation Act and the Supreme Court decision in Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T.P. Kunhaliumma (AIR 1977 SC 282), which held that Article 137 applies to applications under the CPC and other enactments.

The High Court examined the conduct of the petitioners, particularly petitioner no. 4, the General Power of Attorney holder. It found:

• Petitioner no. 4 held a General Power of Attorney for the original plaintiffs and was prosecuting the title suit on their behalf.
• During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs sold almost the entire suit land to the petitioners.
• Despite this, petitioner no. 4 did not disclose his own purchases or those of his family members and continued as attorney-holder.
• The other petitioners were his wife, sons, daughter and brothers, so they could not claim to be bonafide purchasers without notice.

The Court agreed with the first appellate court that the petitioners’ conduct was blameworthy and that they were not innocent purchasers without knowledge of the pending litigation. It held that the acts of petitioner no. 4 as power of attorney holder would bind the subsequent purchasers, and they could not feign ignorance of the proceedings.

However, the Court also recognised an important practical reality: the petitioners had purchased almost the entire suit property, leaving only about 10 dhur with the original plaintiffs. After selling all their interest, the plaintiffs had little incentive or motivation to pursue the appeal earnestly, especially as they were stated to be residing outside Bihar.

The Court reasoned that if the petitioners were not allowed to participate in the first appeal, their rights over the property could be seriously affected. While Order I Rule 10(2) gives no automatic right to a non-party to be impleaded, it allows the court discretion to add a party where their presence is necessary for effective adjudication.

The Court stressed that the petitioners, as purchasers pendente lite, could not claim any greater rights than their vendors and would be bound by the doctrine of lis pendens. A decree in the suit would bind those who claim through the parties or derive title during pendency of the lis.

Balancing these factors, the Court held that, despite their blameworthy conduct and knowledge of the litigation, the petitioners had substantial interest in the disputed property and their rights were likely to be affected by the outcome of the appeal. Therefore, they should be impleaded as co-appellants to safeguard their interests.

At the same time, the Court decided that this benefit should come with strict conditions. Relying again on Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 733 and Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 7 SCC 417, it held that their impleadment would be:

• Subject to payment of heavy cost of Rs. 25,000 to respondent no. 1 on the first date of hearing before the first appellate court; and
• Subject to the condition that they would not hinder disposal of the appeal in any manner.

The High Court therefore allowed both intervention applications dated 06.12.2022 and 06.01.2023, directed that the petitioners be impleaded as co-appellants in Title Appeal No. 79 of 2019, and partly set aside the order dated 17.01.2023 of the Additional District Judge-VI, Danapur.

The Court further directed the first appellate court to make all endeavours to dispose of the title appeal within three months from receipt or production of a copy of the High Court judgment.

Importantly, the Court clarified that as purchasers pendente lite, the petitioners are bound by the acts of the original plaintiffs before the trial court and cannot question those acts in appeal. Their impleadment is only to enable them to pursue the appeal already filed, not to reopen the conduct of the suit.

Why This Judgment Matters

This Patna High Court judgment is significant for people who buy land while a court case over that land is already pending.

First, it confirms that such purchasers, although bound by the outcome under the doctrine of lis pendens, can still be added as parties in an appeal if they have bought most of the disputed property and their rights may be directly affected. The court looked at the reality that the original owners had sold almost everything and might not seriously fight the case.

Second, the Court sent a strong message about honesty in court proceedings. It openly criticised the conduct of the attorney-holder and the purchasers for hiding the sale deeds and continuing the suit in the old names. While it ultimately allowed their impleadment, it did so only after imposing a cost and making clear they cannot undo what the original plaintiffs did at trial.

Third, for ordinary land buyers, especially in Bihar, the decision shows that:

• Buying land during a pending case is risky; you step into the same position as the seller and are bound by the case result.
• If you buy such land, you should promptly inform the court and seek to be added as a party; delaying for many years can invite serious criticism and costs.
• Even with delay, a court may still allow your participation if otherwise your rights would be severely hit, but only on strict terms.

For lawyers and courts, the decision balances two concerns — discouraging fraud and suppression of material facts, yet ensuring that those who now hold the real interest in the property can be heard before a final decree is passed.

Legal Issues and Answers

• Issue: Can purchasers pendente lite of almost the entire suit property be impleaded as co-appellants in a pending title appeal, despite having delayed approaching the court and having knowledge of the litigation?
  Answer: Yes. The Patna High Court held that, considering their substantial interest in the property and likely impact of the appeal’s outcome on their rights, they should be added as co-appellants under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, subject to payment of costs and conditions that they do not delay the appeal and remain bound by the acts of the original plaintiffs.
• Issue: Does being a transferee pendente lite give a purchaser any higher right than the original plaintiff in the litigation?
  Answer: No. The Court reiterated that such purchasers cannot claim any extra privilege beyond what was available to their vendors. They are fully bound by the doctrine of lis pendens and by all acts of the original plaintiffs before the trial court, which they cannot challenge in appeal.
• Issue: How should a court exercise its discretion under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC when there is blameworthy conduct and delay by the proposed parties?
  Answer: The Court held that while conduct and delay are relevant and may attract costs, the primary consideration is whether their presence is necessary for effective and complete adjudication and protection of their substantive rights. Here, the Court allowed impleadment but imposed heavy costs and strict conditions.

Cases Cited by the Court

• Yashoda v. Sukhwinder Singh and Others, Civil Appeal No. 8247 of 2009 (Supreme Court) – cited on the effect of fraud and suppression of material facts.
• Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and Others v. T.T. Murali Babu, AIR 2014 SC 1141 – cited on delay, laches, and their impact on others’ rights.
• Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T.P. Kunhaliumma, AIR 1977 SC 282 – cited on the applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act to applications under CPC and other enactments.
• Devendra Kumar Sarewgee and Others v. Purbanchal Estates (P) Ltd. and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 199 – cited by petitioners regarding devolution of interest.
• Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (2010) 7 SCC 417 – cited and relied upon on the scope of Order I Rule 10 CPC.
• Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Others, (2005) 6 SCC 733 – relied upon in relation to necessary and proper parties in a civil suit.
• Patna High Court judgment in Second Appeal No. 73 of 2021 – referred to on delayed impleadment by intervenors with prior knowledge (details not set out in this judgment).

Case Details

Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 578 of 2023 (Patna High Court)

Case Title: Shanti Singh & Ors. v. Jugeshwar Nath Srivastava & Ors.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha

Citation: 2024 (1) PLJR 493

Advocates:
For the petitioners (intervenors): Mr. Shashi Nath Jha, Advocate; Mr. Sunny Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Senior Advocate; Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate.

Nature of the case: Civil miscellaneous petition under Article 227 / supervisory jurisdiction (civil miscellaneous jurisdiction) challenging an order of the first appellate court rejecting intervention/impleadment applications in a pending title appeal.

Impugned Order: Order dated 17.01.2023 passed by Additional District Judge-VI, Danapur, Patna in Title Appeal No. 79 of 2019.

Final Outcome in Patna High Court: Civil Miscellaneous No. 578 of 2023 allowed; impugned order partly set aside; petitioners directed to be impleaded as co-appellants in Title Appeal No. 79 of 2019 subject to payment of Rs. 25,000 as costs; appellate court directed to dispose of appeal within three months; petitioners held bound by acts of original plaintiffs before trial court.

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.