H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar (2025) - Case Analysis

Why in the Spotlight? - H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar (2025)

The recent case of H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar (2025) drew attention due to important legal issues regarding property disputes and procedural rights. One of the main reasons for its spotlight was the analysis of the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The provision governs the transfer of property during the pending litigation. The case dealt with allegations of property sales conducted despite existing injunction orders which raised concerns about the enforceability of the directions of the courts in land disputes. Another important aspect in H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar was the interpretation of the Supreme Court on whether a pendente lite transferee whose plea for impleadment had been dismissed could be allowed to appeal a decree despite not being part of the proceedings.

Introduction of H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar (2025)

The case of H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar (2025) centres around a dispute regarding the specific performance of a sale agreement involving agricultural land in Bagalur Village, Karnataka. The case addressed important legal issues such as unauthorized sales, violation of injunction orders and condonation of delay in appeals, highlighting the rights and limitations of pendente lite transferees under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. For more insightful analyses of important Supreme Court judgements explore the Recent Judgements.

Download H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar PDF

Historical Context and Facts of H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar (2025)

The case at hand addressed a conflict over the specific performance of a sale agreement involving agricultural land in Bagalur Village, Karnataka. The suit involved various important issues including unauthorized sales, violation of injunction orders and condonation of a delay in filing an appeal. The following are the brief facts of the case of H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar -

Parties Involved in H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar

The Plaintiffs (Appellants) were agreement holders who entered into an agreement of sale with Late Smt. Daisy Shanthappa who was the original Defendant and owner of the suit property was represented by her power of attorney holder i.e., Defendant No. 2 Shri V. Chandramohan.

Here, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are subsequent purchasers who acquired portions of the property despite a subsisting injunction.

Initial Agreements

Smt. Daisy Shanthappa on 5th September, 1995, agreed to sell the suit property (42 acres) for Rs. 20,00,000. The Plaintiffs paid Rs. 5,00,000 as earnest money. A supplementary agreement was signed on 10th March, 1997, extending the duration for execution of the sale deed after the Defendants failed to evict unauthorized occupants. By this time the Plaintiffs had already paid Rs. 15,00,000.

Disputed Sale

The Defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed in favor of Defendant No. 3 (Respondent No. 7) for 40 acres at a consideration of Rs. 40,00,000 despite the subsistence of the sale agreement with the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs discovered this when Defendant No. 3 attempted to change revenue records.

Injunction and Violations

The Plaintiffs filed a suit and sought for specific performance. The Trial Court directed a temporary injunction restraining alienation of the property. Despite this, Defendant No. 3 sold 4 and 6-acre portions to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in contravention of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Legal Developments

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in 2007 filed an application to be impleaded as Defendants. In 2014 the application was rejected by the Trial Court on grounds that they purchased the property during litigation without the permission of the Court and in violation of the injunction. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs and awarded specific performance.

Subsequent Appeal

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in 2018 despite the previous dismissal of their impleadment and timeline of nearly two years since the judgement of the Trial Court filed Regular First Appeal. They sought condonation of a 586-day delay and leave to appeal.

Order of the High Court and Appeal in Supreme Court

The High Court of Karnataka condoned the delay and granted leave to appeal. Aggrieved by the decision of the Karnataka High Court, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal and challenged the decision of the High Court in the Supreme Court.

Issue addressed in H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar (2025)

In the case of H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar (2025) the following issues were addressed -

• Right of Pendente Lite Transferee to Implead: Whether an individual who purchases a property during the pendency of litigation (pendente lite transferee) has a right to be impleaded in the suit under Order I Rule 10 or Order XXII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure?
• Grant of Leave to Appeal: In H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar another important question was examined whether a pendente lite transferee whose plea for impleadment has already been rejected can be granted leave to appeal against a decree without being a party to the original suit?
• Applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Whether the transfer of the suit property during the pendency of litigation, despite being subject to Section 52 TPA affects the legal rights of the transferee?
• Aggrieved Person Test: Whether the Respondents can be considered “aggrieved persons” eligible to appeal despite not being impleaded in the suit?

Legal Provisions involved in H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar (2025)

Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act played a significant role in the case of H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar. The following is the analysis of this provision -

Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act: Transfer of Property pending suit relating thereto

According to Section 52 of TPA when a case involving immovable property is pending in any Court, the parties to the case cannot transfer or deal with the property in a way that affects the rights of other parties under the final court decision. This can only be done with the permission of the Court and under its terms.
Section 52 is based on the doctrine of lis pendens which means pending litigation. The doctrine is based on the maxim ‘pendente lite nihil innovature’ which means that nothing new should be introduced during the pendency of litigation. The following essential elements must be included in order to apply Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act -

• There must be pendency of suit or proceeding
• Suit or proceeding pending must be in the Court of competent jurisdiction
• Right of immovable property must be directly linked to the suit
• Such suit or proceeding must not be collusive
• Property in dispute must be transferred
• Such transfer of the property must affect the rights of the parties

In the case of H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar (2025), Section 52 highlighted that when a suit or proceeding regarding immovable property is pending in any court the parties cannot transfer or deal with the property in ways that impact the rights of the other parties under the final judgment without the permission of the Court.

Judgment and Impact of H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar (2025)

The 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan in its decision on 29th January, 2025 in H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar explained the legal position regarding the rights of a pendente lite transferee and the criteria to be impleaded or granted leave to appeal in the pending suit or proceedings. The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed the following principles -

• Impleadment based on facts: The Courts after examining the facts of the case can allow a pendente lite transferee to be impleaded under Order I Rule 10 CPC or Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.
• No automatic right: The Court noted that a pendente lite transferee does not have an inherent right to be impleaded in a suit.
• No absolute rule: The Bench in H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar also stated that the Courts may but are not obligated to permit the impleadment of a pendente lite transferee.
• Nature of the suit matters: The decision of the Court to implead such transferees depends on the nature of the suit or proceedings and available material.
• Failure to seek impleadment: The Court also stated that if a pendente lite transferee does not seek impleadment, it is at their peril and Plaintiff may improperly conduct the case.
• Binding judgment: The Court also noted that a pendente lite transferee is bound by the outcome of the case even if they remain unrepresented.
• Impact of Section 52 TPA: A transfer during litigation is governed by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act and making it subject to the final resolution of the suit.
• Leave to appeal: The Court ruled that a pendente lite transferee may seek leave to appeal under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC either independently or through an involved party.

The Supreme Court in H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar noted the following findings -

• Rejection of Karnataka High Court Decision: The Supreme Court noted that the High Court of Karnataka erred in granting Respondents No. 1 and 2 leave to appeal despite their plea for impleadment being rejected by the Trial Court and attaining finality.
• Binding Transfer: The Court noted that the transfer of property to Respondents No. 1 and 2 was made during the pendency of the proceedings and was subject to its outcome under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act.
• No Adverse Effect: The Supreme Court held that Respondents No. 1 and 2 were not adversely impacted by the decision of the Trial Court and disqualifying them from seeking leave to appeal.
• Cheating Allegations: The Court in H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar stated that if Respondents No. 1 and 2 felt cheated by the original owner i.e., Defendant No. 3 they could pursue separate legal remedies for the recovery of the sale consideration.

Ultimately, the Court ruled that the Respondents No. 1 and 2 were bound by the result of the litigation and cannot seek leave to appeal without being impleaded. The Court also advised Respondents No. 1 and 2 to approach appropriate legal forums if they felt they were cheated by the seller. Thus, the Supreme Court in H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar (2025) allowed the appeal filed by the Plaintiff.

Conclusion

In H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar (2025) the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs and highlighted that pendente lite transferees do not have an inherent right to be impleaded or to seek leave to appeal without involvement in the proceedings.