Transferee Pendente Lite Bound by Preliminary Decree: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reinforced the finality of preliminary partition decrees, ruling that property transfers executed during the pendency of a suit are hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and cannot override judicial determinations of shares. In a decisive verdict, the Court held that a subsequent purchaser's claim of being a 'bona fide' buyer is irrelevant once a sale occurs after a preliminary decree has already established the legal rights of the original co-sharers.

In a judgment delivered by Justice Amit Bansal, the Court dismissed an appeal filed by a subsequent purchaser who had acquired a property that was the subject of a long-standing partition dispute. The Bench emphasized that under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a preliminary decree is not a tentative measure but a conclusive determination of the parties' rights that becomes unalterable if not challenged through the appropriate legal channels.

Court's Rationale on Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act

The Court observed that the appellant had purchased the suit property in 2012, well after the first preliminary decree was passed in 2011. Relying on the principles laid down in Shingara Singh v. Daljit Singh and Anr ( "2024 INSC 770": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 860) and Balwant Singh v. Buta Ram and Ors, the Court held that a transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree already passed. The Bench clarified that it does not matter if the purchaser had notice of the decree; the law ensures that the suit property remains subject to the court's jurisdiction throughout the litigation.

Regarding the appellant's failure to appear before the Trial Court, the High Court noted that ample opportunities were granted. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is well settled that an ex-parte decree cannot be set aside unless sufficient cause is shown by the relevant party for the said non-appearance... The appellant (defendant no.4) failed to provide sufficient cause for her non-appearance on various dates... In these circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the submission of the appellant (defendant no.4) that the Trial Court should have awaited the outcome of the Transfer Petition before proceeding to decree the present suit."

Directions Issued by the High Court

The Court has the following directions:

"Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of."

Background

The dispute involved the legal heirs of Late Sh. Sukh Dayal Sharma and Late Smt. Kaushlya Devi regarding a property in Paschim Puri, Delhi. A partition suit was filed by four of the descendants against their siblings. During the proceedings, the Trial Court passed a preliminary decree on February 9, 2011, declaring that each of the seven legal heirs was entitled to a 1/7th share. However, in May 2012, one of the defendants sold the entire property to the appellant via a registered sale deed.

The appellant was later impleaded but failed to lead evidence to prove she was a bona fide purchaser. The Trial Court subsequently passed a second preliminary decree and a final decree making the 1/7th shares absolute and ordering the sale of the property since it was incapable of physical division. The appellant challenged these orders, alleging a lack of opportunity to lead evidence. The High Court, after reviewing the records, found that the appellant had repeatedly failed to appear and had not challenged the original 2011 preliminary decree, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the co-sharers' rights.

Case Details:
Case No.: RFA 810/2019
Case Title: Antara Majumdar v. Vimla Choudhary & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate with Mr. Tarun Majumdar.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vijay Datt Gahtari and Mr. Zeeshan Khan, Advocates for R-1, R-2 and R-4; Mr. Akhil Gupta, Advocate for R-6 and R-7; Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar and Mr. Madhav Binzani, Amicus Curiae.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 7508