“The limited right of a purchaser pendente lite, or the first purchaser, from a co-sharer to get equities worked out in his favour gets exhausted with his impleadment in the suit and a further alienation of the same property by the purchaser or the purchaser pendente lite does not create a fresh equity or revive the same right in the second purchaser.”
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a ‘subsequent’ purchaser pendente lite, who have purchased the suit property or a part of the suit property from another purchaser/ purchaser pendente lite, has no right to equities and cannot be impleaded in a partition suit.
Justice Shree Chandrashekhar held thus in Anita Soni vs. Mina Devi, while examining the correctness of a trial court order that had rejected the application by a ‘subsequent’ purchaser pendente lite seeking impleadment in the suit.
The court, referring to precedents in this regard, observed that a purchaser pendente lite who has purchased undivided share of a co-sharer is normally impleaded as a party in order to work out equities in his favour in the final decree proceedings. “His impleadment in the partition suit is only for the purpose of providing an opportunity to him to protect his rights flowing from the sale-deed executed by a co-sharer to the extent of his vendor’s share in the joint family property. His presence is not necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit and, in fact, only at the stage of Taktabandi when a final decree shall be prepared, a purchaser from a co-sharer can have a right to get the equities worked out in such a manner that he may get the land comprised under the sale-deed which has been transferred to him by one of the co-sharers,” it said.
But the court observed that the courts must be cautious and vigilant in this regard and impleadment of a stranger in the partition suit must be for substantial cause and a purchaser pendente lite if impleaded in a partition suit has a very limited right.
“This limited right of a purchaser from a co-sharer is not a transferrable right. May be the equitable right in the property in question has been transferred by a purchaser, who himself may be purchaser pendente lite, to another person, pending litigation, still the limited right of a purchaser to get equities worked out in his favour in the 7 final decree proceedings to the extent his vendor who is a co-sharer gets his share in the property, cannot be transferred to the “subsequent” purchaser pendente lite. The limited right of a purchaser pendente lite, or the first purchaser, from a co-sharer to get equities worked out in his favour gets exhausted with his impleadment in the suit and a further alienation of the same property by the purchaser or the purchaser pendente lite does not create a fresh equity or revive the same right in the second purchaser,” the judge added.
Upholding the trial court order, the court, in the facts of the case, said: “She is not a purchaser from a co-sharer. If at all she has a right it is only against her vendors who are parties in the suit.”