H. Anjanappa & Ors. v. A. Prabhakar & Ors.
Background
The appellants had an agreement to purchase land in Bangalore from the original owner in 1995 and, after paying most of the price, sued for specific performance when the owner instead sold the same land to a third party. During this pending suit, that third party further sold a portion of the land to the respondents, in direct violation of a court injunction against such transfers. The respondents' application to be added as parties to the suit was rejected by the trial court and this rejection was never challenged. The trial court eventually decreed the suit in the appellants' favour. Nearly two years later, the respondents (having done nothing in the interim) sought and obtained the High Court's permission to file a very late appeal (586 days delayed) against that decree, claiming they were innocent purchasers unaware of the litigation.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court seriously erred in condoning such a long, unexplained delay merely because the respondents were elderly and living abroad: this did not amount to "sufficient cause" under the law. The Court extensively reviewed the law on when a person who purchased property during pending litigation (a "transferee pendente lite") can be allowed to appeal a decree affecting that property: such a person has no automatic right to appeal but must show they are genuinely prejudiced, and having earlier failed (without challenge) in an application to join the suit as a party weighs heavily against them. Because the respondents bought the land in clear violation of an existing court injunction, they could not claim to be innocent purchasers deserving special indulgence. The High Court's order permitting the late appeal was set aside, though the respondents were left free to pursue their own legal remedies against the person who had wrongly sold them the property.
Lesson Learnt
Anyone who buys property that is already the subject of a court case (especially in violation of a court injunction) does so at their own risk and generally cannot use inordinate delay or their vendor's dishonesty as an excuse to reopen a decree: the safer course before buying disputed property is to formally join the litigation and protect one's interest at the earliest opportunity.