1996 (8) TMI 569 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the respondents are necessary or proper parties to the suit?
2. Application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act in the case.

Analysis:

1. Issue 1 - Whether the respondents are necessary or proper parties to the suit?
The appellant filed a suit for a declaration of ownership based on a registered Will executed by his mother. The trial court granted an interim injunction, which was later vacated. The defendants then alienated the property to the respondents pending the suit. The High Court directed the respondents to be impleaded as party defendants. The appellant argued that the respondents are not necessary or proper parties as the claim is based on the registered Will, and the respondents cannot challenge its validity. The court held that the respondents, who claimed right through the alienated property, are not necessary or proper parties as the primary relief is based on the registered Will. The respondents' alienation during the suit is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

2. Issue 2 - Application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act
Section 52 prohibits dealing with immovable property during a pending suit without court authority, affecting the rights of other parties. In this case, the defendants' alienation of the property to the respondents without court authority is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. As the alienation was not authorized by the court, the respondents cannot be considered necessary or proper parties to the suit. The court allowed the appeal, dismissing the petition under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC without costs.