Date of the Judgment: January 29, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 121
Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan. This was a unanimous decision.
Can a subsequent purchaser of a property, who was not a party to the original suit, appeal a decree for specific performance? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the circumstances under which such appeals can be allowed. This case revolves around a dispute over a property sale and the rights of those who purchased the land during the ongoing litigation. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, which had allowed the subsequent purchasers to appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established legal procedures.
Case Background
The case involves a property dispute originating from an agreement of sale dated September 5, 1995, where the original owner, Smt. Daisy Shanthappa, agreed to sell her land to the plaintiffs (appellants). The agreement was for a total sale consideration of Rs. 20,00,000. A sum of Rs. 5,00,000 was paid as earnest money. Later, a supplementary agreement was executed on March 10, 1997, extending the time for the sale deed, and the plaintiffs paid a total of Rs. 15,00,000.
However, the original owner, through her power of attorney holder, sold a portion of the land to Defendant No. 3 (Respondent No. 7) for Rs. 40,00,000. The plaintiffs, upon discovering this, filed a suit for specific performance. During the pendency of this suit, Defendant No. 3 sold a portion of the land to Respondents No. 1 and 2. The Trial Court passed an order of temporary injunction on December 17, 2003, restraining the defendants from alienating the property. However, Defendant No. 3 violated the injunction by selling a portion of the suit property to Respondents No. 1 and 2.
The Trial Court rejected an application by Respondents No. 1 and 2 to be impleaded as parties to the suit, citing that they purchased the property during the pendency of the suit, violating the court’s injunction and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Trial Court eventually decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering specific performance. Defendant No. 3’s appeal against this decree was dismissed by the High Court. Subsequently, Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an appeal with a delay of 586 days, which the High Court condoned, granting them leave to appeal. This decision was challenged in the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 5, 1995 | Original Agreement of Sale between Smt. Daisy Shanthappa and the plaintiffs. |
| March 10, 1997 | Supplementary Agreement extending the time for execution of Sale Deed. |
| 2003 | Defendant No.1 sold the land to Defendant No. 3 |
| 2003 | Plaintiffs filed O.S. No.1093/2003 (later renumbered as O.S. No.458/2006) seeking specific performance. |
| December 17, 2003 | Trial Court passed a temporary injunction restraining alienation of the suit property. |
| April 5, 2004 | Defendant No. 3 sold a portion of the suit property to Respondents No. 1 and 2. |
| July 10, 2007 | Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an application (I.A. No.4) to implead themselves as defendants. |
| August 6, 2014 | Trial Court rejected the impleadment application of Respondents No. 1 and 2. |
| September 16, 2016 | Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering specific performance. |
| July 4, 2017 | High Court dismissed R.F.A. No.396/2017 filed by Defendant No. 3. |
| 2018 | Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed RFA No.1303/2018 with a delay of 586 days. |
| November 16, 2022 | High Court condoned the delay and granted leave to appeal to Respondents No. 1 and 2. |
| January 29, 2025 | Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court initially rejected the impleadment application of Respondents No. 1 and 2, stating that their purchase was in violation of the court’s injunction and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Trial Court then decreed the suit for specific performance in favor of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 3’s appeal against this decree was dismissed by the High Court.
Subsequently, Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a Regular First Appeal (RFA No.1303/2018) before the High Court, along with applications to condone a delay of 586 days and for leave to appeal. The High Court allowed both applications, condoning the delay and granting leave to appeal, which led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily discusses Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which deals with the transfer of property pending a suit. The section states:
“52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto. —During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.”
This provision essentially means that any transfer of property during a lawsuit concerning that property is subject to the outcome of the suit. The judgment also refers to Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which governs the addition of parties to a suit, and Section 146 of the CPC which deals with proceedings by or against representatives.
Arguments
Plaintiffs’ Arguments:
- The High Court erred in condoning the 586-day delay in filing the appeal.
- Respondents No. 1 and 2 were not bona fide purchasers as they bought the property during the pendency of the suit and in violation of a court injunction.
- The rejection of the impleadment application of Respondents No. 1 and 2 by the Trial Court, which was not challenged, should prevent them from appealing the final decree.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The High Court was correct in allowing the appeal as they are bona fide subsequent purchasers with a substantial interest in the property.
- The transfer of property during the suit does not make the transfer ineffective, and its validity is subject to the suit’s outcome.
- There was collusion between the original owner (Defendant No. 3) and the plaintiffs, which should allow them to appeal.
- The delay in filing the appeal should be condoned because they were senior citizens residing in Scotland and trusted their vendor to protect their interests.
- As subsequent purchasers, they are claiming under the defendant as per Section 146 of the CPC.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Plaintiffs) | Sub-Submissions (Respondents) |
|---|---|---|
| Condonation of Delay |
✓ The delay of 586 days was inordinate and unexplained. ✓ Respondents were not vigilant of their rights. |
✓ Delay should be condoned due to being senior citizens residing in Scotland. ✓ They trusted their vendor to protect their interests. |
| Right to Appeal |
✓ Rejected impleadment application prevents appeal. ✓ Respondents are not bona fide purchasers. |
✓ They are bona fide subsequent purchasers with a substantial interest. ✓ Transfer is valid, subject to the outcome of the litigation. ✓ Collusion between the vendor and plaintiffs warrants an appeal. |
| Applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act | ✓ The transfer was made during the pendency of the suit and in violation of a court order. |
✓ Section 52 does not apply to collusive proceedings. ✓ They are claiming under the defendant as per Section 146 of the CPC. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issue for consideration:
- Whether the High Court committed an error in condoning the delay of 586 days in filing the regular first appeal and granting leave to appeal to the subsequent purchasers.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court erred in condoning the delay and granting leave to appeal? | The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed an error. | The delay of 586 days was not sufficiently explained and the subsequent purchasers did not demonstrate vigilance of their rights. The High Court should not have granted leave to appeal. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
- Sri V.N. Krishna Murthy and another vs. Sri Ravikumar and others (Civil Appeal Nos.2701-2704 of 2020) – Supreme Court of India
- Nagendra Nath Dey vs. Suresh Chandra Dey, AIR 1932 PC 165 – Privy Council
- Adi Pherozshah Gandhi vs. H.M.Seervai, AIR 1971 SC 385 – Supreme Court of India
- Smt. Sukhrani (dead) by L.R’s and others vs. Hari Shanker and others, AIR 1979 SC 1436 – Supreme Court of India
- Smt. Jatan Kumar Golcha vs. Golcha Properties Private Limited, (1970) 3 SCC 573 – Supreme Court of India
- State of Punjab and others vs. Amar Singh and another, (1974) 2 SCC 70 – Supreme Court of India
- Baldev Singh vs. Surinder Mohan Sharma and others, (2003) 1 SCC 34 – Supreme Court of India
- A. Subash Babu vs. State of A.P. and another, (2011) 7 SCC 616 – Supreme Court of India
- Shanti Kumar R. Canji vs. Home Insurance Co. of New York, (1974) 2 SCC 387 – Supreme Court of India
- State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (1977) 3 SCC 592 – Supreme Court of India
- Srimathi K. Ponnalagu Ammani vs. The State of Madras, AIR 1953 Madras 485 – Madras High Court
- Province of Bombay vs. W.I. Automobile Association, AIR 1949 Bombay 141 – Bombay High Court
- Indian Bank Limited, Madras vs. Seth Bansiram Jashamal Firm, AIR 1934 Mad 360 – Madras High Court
- In re Securities Insurance Company, (1894) 2 Ch D 410 – English Court of Appeal
- In re Markham Markham vs. Markham, (1881) 16 Ch D 1 – English Court of Appeal
- In re Padstow Total Loss and Collision Assurance Association, (1882) 20 Ch. D 137 – English Court of Appeal
- Attorney General vs. Marquis of Ailesbury, (1885) 16 QBD 408 – English Court of Appeal
- In re Ex Tsar of Bulgaria, (1921) 1 Ch D 107 – English Court of Appeal
- Nagubai Ammal & Ors. vs. B. Shama Rao & Ors., AIR 1956 SC 593 – Supreme Court of India
- Vinod Seth vs. Devinder Bajaj, (2010) 8 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India
- Thomson Press (India) Ltd. vs. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd., [2013] 2 SCR 74 – Supreme Court of India
- Smt. Saila Bala Dassi vs. Sm. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and Anr., [1958] SCR 1287 – Supreme Court of India
- Raj Kumar vs. Sardari Lal, (2004) 2 SCC 601 – Supreme Court of India
- Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs. Jai Prakash University, (2001) 6 SCC 534 – Supreme Court of India
- Amit Kumar Shaw vs. Farida Khatoon, AIR 2005 SC 2209 – Supreme Court of India
- Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
- Sections 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
| Authority | How the Court Considered It |
|---|---|
| Sri V.N. Krishna Murthy and another vs. Sri Ravikumar and others (Civil Appeal Nos.2701-2704 of 2020) – Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the principle that a stranger cannot file an appeal unless they are an aggrieved person. |
| Nagendra Nath Dey vs. Suresh Chandra Dey, AIR 1932 PC 165 – Privy Council | Cited for the definition of an appeal. |
| Adi Pherozshah Gandhi vs. H.M.Seervai, AIR 1971 SC 385 – Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain who can be considered an aggrieved person for the purpose of filing an appeal. |
| Smt. Sukhrani (dead) by L.R’s and others vs. Hari Shanker and others, AIR 1979 SC 1436 – Supreme Court of India | Cited to clarify that an earlier interlocutory order does not preclude a higher court from considering the matter at a later stage. |
| Smt. Jatan Kumar Golcha vs. Golcha Properties Private Limited, (1970) 3 SCC 573 – Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the view that a person not party to a suit may appeal with the court’s leave if prejudicially affected. |
| State of Punjab and others vs. Amar Singh and another, (1974) 2 SCC 70 – Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the rule that a person not party to a decree may appeal if bound by or aggrieved by it. |
| Baldev Singh vs. Surinder Mohan Sharma and others, (2003) 1 SCC 34 – Supreme Court of India | Cited to define that an aggrieved person is one whose right is affected by the judgment. |
| A. Subash Babu vs. State of A.P. and another, (2011) 7 SCC 616 – Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the elastic concept of an ‘aggrieved person’. |
| Shanti Kumar R. Canji vs. Home Insurance Co. of New York, (1974) 2 SCC 387 – Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that an aggrieved person does not include someone with a psychological injury. |
| State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (1977) 3 SCC 592 – Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that an aggrieved person does not include someone with a psychological injury. |
| Srimathi K. Ponnalagu Ammani vs. The State of Madras, AIR 1953 Madras 485 – Madras High Court | Cited for the test to determine when to grant leave to appeal to a non-party, i.e., when they are bound by the decree. |
| Province of Bombay vs. W.I. Automobile Association, AIR 1949 Bombay 141 – Bombay High Court | Cited for the principle that a person affected by a trial court order may appeal with leave. |
| Indian Bank Limited, Madras vs. Seth Bansiram Jashamal Firm, AIR 1934 Mad 360 – Madras High Court | Cited to support that a non-party to a suit does not have a right to appeal. |
| In re Securities Insurance Company, (1894) 2 Ch D 410 – English Court of Appeal | Cited to support that a non-party to a suit may appeal with leave if bound by or aggrieved by it. |
| In re Markham Markham vs. Markham, (1881) 16 Ch D 1 – English Court of Appeal | Cited to explain the law regarding grant of leave to appeal. |
| In re Padstow Total Loss and Collision Assurance Association, (1882) 20 Ch. D 137 – English Court of Appeal | Cited to explain the law regarding grant of leave to appeal. |
| Attorney General vs. Marquis of Ailesbury, (1885) 16 QBD 408 – English Court of Appeal | Cited to explain the law regarding grant of leave to appeal. |
| In re Ex Tsar of Bulgaria, (1921) 1 Ch D 107 – English Court of Appeal | Cited to explain the law regarding grant of leave to appeal. |
| Nagubai Ammal & Ors. vs. B. Shama Rao & Ors., AIR 1956 SC 593 – Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain that a transfer pendente lite is valid except to the extent it conflicts with the decree. |
| Vinod Seth vs. Devinder Bajaj, (2010) 8 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India | Cited to support that Section 52 does not void transfers but makes them subservient to the suit’s outcome. |
| Thomson Press (India) Ltd. vs. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd., [2013] 2 SCR 74 – Supreme Court of India | Cited to support that a transfer of property pendete lite is not void and that a transferee pendente lite can be added as a party under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC. |
| Smt. Saila Bala Dassi vs. Sm. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and Anr., [1958] SCR 1287 – Supreme Court of India | Cited to support that a transferee during the pendency of a suit can be brought on record at the stage of appeal. |
| Raj Kumar vs. Sardari Lal, (2004) 2 SCC 601 – Supreme Court of India | Cited to support that a purchaser pendente lite should be given an opportunity to protect his rights. |
| Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs. Jai Prakash University, (2001) 6 SCC 534 – Supreme Court of India | Cited to support that the suit may be continued by or against the person to whom interest has devolved during the pendency of the suit. |
| Amit Kumar Shaw vs. Farida Khatoon, AIR 2005 SC 2209 – Supreme Court of India | Cited to support that a transferee pendente lite is vitally interested in the litigation and can be joined as a party under Order XXII Rule 10. |
| Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 | Explained the effect of transfer of property during the pendency of a suit. |
| Sections 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Explained the provisions for preferring appeals. |
| Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Explained the procedure for adding parties to a suit. |
| Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Explained the procedure for continuing a suit in case of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit. |
| Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Explained that a lis pendens transferee from the defendant is a person claiming under the defendant. |
Judgment
| Submission | How the Court Treated It |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs’ submission that the High Court erred in condoning the delay. | The Court agreed, stating the delay of 586 days was not sufficiently explained. |
| Plaintiffs’ submission that Respondents No. 1 and 2 were not bona fide purchasers. | The Court agreed, noting the purchase was during the pendency of the suit and in violation of an injunction. |
| Plaintiffs’ submission that rejection of impleadment application prevents appeal. | The Court agreed that the rejection of the impleadment application was valid. |
| Respondents’ submission that they are bona fide subsequent purchasers. | The Court rejected this, stating they purchased the property during the pendency of the suit and in violation of an injunction. |
| Respondents’ submission that the transfer is valid subject to the suit’s outcome. | The Court acknowledged this principle but noted it did not justify granting leave to appeal. |
| Respondents’ submission that there was collusion between the vendor and the plaintiffs. | The Court did not find this to be a sufficient reason to grant leave to appeal. |
| Respondents’ submission regarding delay condonation due to being senior citizens. | The Court rejected this, stating that they did not demonstrate vigilance of their rights. |
| Respondents’ submission that they are claiming under the defendant as per Section 146 of the CPC. | The Court acknowledged this but stated that it did not justify granting leave to appeal. |
| Authority | How the Court Viewed It |
|---|---|
| Sri V.N. Krishna Murthy and another vs. Sri Ravikumar and others (Civil Appeal Nos.2701-2704 of 2020) – Supreme Court of India | *Cited* to emphasize that only an aggrieved person can file an appeal. |
| Nagendra Nath Dey vs. Suresh Chandra Dey, AIR 1932 PC 165 – Privy Council | *Cited* to define the term “appeal”. |
| Adi Pherozshah Gandhi vs. H.M.Seervai, AIR 1971 SC 385 – Supreme Court of India | *Cited* to clarify the concept of an “aggrieved person”. |
| Smt. Sukhrani (dead) by L.R’s and others vs. Hari Shanker and others, AIR 1979 SC 1436 – Supreme Court of India | *Cited* to explain that an earlier interlocutory order does not prevent a higher court from considering the matter later. |
| Smt. Jatan Kumar Golcha vs. Golcha Properties Private Limited, (1970) 3 SCC 573 – Supreme Court of India | *Cited* to support the view that a non-party may appeal with the court’s leave if prejudicially affected. |
| State of Punjab and others vs. Amar Singh and another, (1974) 2 SCC 70 – Supreme Court of India | *Cited* to support the principle that a non-party may appeal if bound by or aggrieved by the order. |
| Baldev Singh vs. Surinder Mohan Sharma and others, (2003) 1 SCC 34 – Supreme Court of India | *Cited* to define an “aggrieved person” as one whose right is affected by the judgment. |
| A. Subash Babu vs. State of A.P. and another, (2011) 7 SCC 616 – Supreme Court of India | *Cited* to explain the elastic nature of the term “aggrieved person”. |
| Shanti Kumar R. Canji vs. Home Insurance Co. of New York, (1974) 2 SCC 387 – Supreme Court of India | *Cited* to emphasize that an aggrieved person does not include someone with a psychological injury. |
| State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (1977) 3 SCC 592 – Supreme Court of India | *Cited* to emphasize that an aggrieved person does not include someone with a psychological injury. |
| Srimathi K. Ponnalagu Ammani vs. The State of Madras, AIR 1953 Madras 485 – Madras High Court | *Cited* for the test to grant leave to appeal to a non-party, i.e., if they are bound by the decree. |
| Province of Bombay vs. W.I. Automobile Association, AIR 1949 Bombay 141 – Bombay High Court | *Cited* for the principle that a person affected by a trial court order may appeal with leave. |
| Indian Bank Limited, Madras vs. Seth Bansiram Jashamal Firm, AIR 1934 Mad 360 – Madras High Court | *Cited* to support that a non-party does not have a right to appeal. |
| In re Securities Insurance Company, (1894) 2 Ch D 410 – English Court of Appeal | *Cited* to support that a non-party to a suit may appeal with leave if bound by or aggrieved by it. |
| In re Markham Markham vs. Markham, (1881) 16 Ch D 1 – English Court of Appeal | *Cited* to explain the law regarding grant of leave to appeal. |
| In re Padstow Total Loss and Collision Assurance Association, (1882) 20 Ch. D 137 – English Court of Appeal | *Cited* to explain the law regarding grant of leave to appeal. |
| Attorney General vs. Marquis of Ailesbury, (1885) 16 QBD 408 – English Court of Appeal | *Cited* to explain the law regarding grant of leave to appeal. |
| In re Ex Tsar of Bulgaria, (1921) 1 Ch D 107 – English Court of Appeal | *Cited* to explain the law regarding grant of leave to appeal. |
| Nagubai Ammal & Ors. vs. B. Shama Rao & Ors., AIR 1956 SC 593 – Supreme Court of India | *Cited* to explain that a transfer pendente lite is valid except to the extent it conflicts with the decree. |
| Vinod Seth vs. Devinder Bajaj, (20) 8 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India | *Cited* to support that Section 52 does not void transfers but makes them subservient to the suit’s outcome. |
| Thomson Press (India) Ltd. vs. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd., [2013] 2 SCR 74 – Supreme Court of India | *Cited* to support that a transfer of property pendete lite is not void and that a transferee pendente lite can be added as a party under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC. |
| Smt. Saila Bala Dassi vs. Sm. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and Anr., [1958] SCR 1287 – Supreme Court of India | *Cited* to support that a transferee during the pendency of a suit can be brought on record at the stage of appeal. |
| Raj Kumar vs. Sardari Lal, (2004) 2 SCC 601 – Supreme Court of India | *Cited* to support that a purchaser pendente lite should be given an opportunity to protect his rights. |
| Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs. Jai Prakash University, (2001) 6 SCC 534 – Supreme Court of India | *Cited* to support that the suit may be continued by or against the person to whom interest has devolved during the pendency of the suit. |
| Amit Kumar Shaw vs. Farida Khatoon, AIR 2005 SC 2209 – Supreme Court of India | *Cited* to support that a transferee pendente lite is vitally interested in the litigation and can be joined as a party under Order XXII Rule 10. |
| Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 | *Explained* the effect of transfer of property during the pendency of a suit. |
| Sections 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | *Explained* the provisions for preferring appeals. |
| Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | *Explained* the procedure for adding parties to a suit. |
| Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | *Explained* the procedure for continuing a suit in case of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit. |
| Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | *Explained* that a lis pendens transferee from the defendant is a person claiming under the defendant. |
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court committed a grave error in condoning the delay of 586 days and granting leave to appeal to Respondents No. 1 and 2. The court emphasized that the respondents were not bona fide purchasers as they purchased the property during the pendency of the suit and in violation of a temporary injunction. The Supreme Court noted that while a transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree, they do not automatically have the right to appeal. The court reiterated that the respondents’ remedy lies in taking steps to protect their interests in the suit, not by filing an appeal.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, dismissing the appeal filed by Respondents No. 1 and 2. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the established legal procedures and principles, particularly concerning transfers during the pendency of a suit and the rights of subsequent purchasers.
Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi of this judgment can be summarized as follows:
- A subsequent purchaser who buys property during the pendency of a suit, especially in violation of a court injunction, is not a bona fide purchaser.
- Such a purchaser does not automatically have the right to appeal a decree passed in the suit.
- The delay in filing an appeal must be sufficiently explained, and the purchaser must demonstrate vigilance of their rights.
- While a transfer pendente lite is valid, it is subject to the outcome of the suit, and the transferee’s remedy is to protect their interests within the existing suit, not through a separate appeal.
- The court must exercise caution while granting leave to appeal to non-parties, especially when they have purchased the property during the pendency of the suit.
Flowchart of the Case
Conclusion
This Supreme Court judgment serves as a significant clarification on the rights of subsequent purchasers in specific performance suits. It emphasizes that while a transfer pendente lite is not void, it is subject to the outcome of the suit. Subsequent purchasers, especially those who acquire property in violation of a court order, cannot claim a right to appeal the decree. Their remedy lies in seeking to protect their interests within the existing suit. This judgment reinforces the principle of lis pendens and ensures that the rights of the original parties to the suit are not undermined by subsequent transactions.