No Special Rights for Buyers Mid-Litigation: Madras High Court Rejects Lis Pendens Purchaser’s Second Appeal

“A lis pendens purchaser buys only with a hope, not with a guarantee” –  In a judgment that reinforces the long-settled principle under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Madras High Court has categorically held that a purchaser of property during the pendency of a partition suit (lis pendens purchaser) cannot claim exclusion of the purchased portion from partition or seek independent rights until the final decree proceedings.

Justice Dr. A.D. Maria Clete emphasized that: “The lis pendens purchaser is not entitled to immediate possession of any specific part of the property. Their only right is to demand a partition and request the court to allot them the share that would have fallen to the original co-sharer/his vendors, after the final decree.”

The Court was dealing with the second appeal filed by P. Sellappan, the 12th defendant in the partition suit, who had purchased a portion of item No.6 during the pendency of the litigation and was aggrieved by the lower appellate court’s reversal of the trial court’s exemption of the said portion from partition.

“Lis pendens purchaser has no independent claim – equities arise only at final decree stage”

The dispute arose out of a family partition suit, where the plaintiff sought division of six properties, including one (item No.6) which was subject to a post-suit sale by certain co-sharers to the appellant. The trial court had exempted the purchased portion from partition, but the lower appellate court reversed this, holding that the rights of the lis pendens purchaser were subordinate to the outcome of the litigation.

While affirming the appellate court’s view, Justice Clete observed:

“It is a well-settled proposition that a lis pendens transfer is not void, but the transferee acquires no independent right and is bound by the result of the litigation.”

“A lis pendens purchaser in a partition suit cannot insist that the property purchased by him must necessarily be allotted to the share of his vendors.”

The Court held that equitable relief may be considered during final decree proceedings, but such a purchaser cannot “foreclose” the rights of co-sharers or pre-empt the judicial determination of shares.

“Section 52 TPA applies with full force – trial court erred in protecting the buyer over pending litigation”

The appellant had sought to defend the trial court’s decision which excluded his purchased portion from the partition decree. However, the High Court rejected this contention, noting that the purchase was made without the court’s permission, and while eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act were also pending.

Justice Clete clarified:

“The purchase squarely falls within the ambit of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.”

“Such a transfer does not confer any independent or superior rights; the purchaser stands in the shoes of his vendors and can seek equitable allocation only in the final decree.”

While the appellate court had inadvertently referred to the sale as “void” in one paragraph, the High Court found no merit in that technicality, pointing out that:

“In paragraph 31, the appellate court correctly concludes that the allotment of the portion purchased by the 12th defendant can be considered on equitable grounds during the final decree proceedings, thereby applying the correct principle.”

“No substantial question of law arises – appeal dismissed”

The Court made it clear that the second appeal was entirely misconceived, as the appellant had failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law, perversity, or illegality in the lower appellate court’s approach.

Summing up, the Court held:

“The appellant, being a lis pendens purchaser, cannot claim any independent right to challenge the preliminary decree, and his equities, if any, can only be considered during the final decree proceedings.”

“No perversity, illegality or misapplication of law has been demonstrated. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal.”

Implications for Civil Practitioners and Real Estate Buyers

This decision is a clear and forceful reiteration of the doctrine of lis pendens and serves as a cautionary tale for anyone buying property embroiled in ongoing litigation. Practitioners are advised to scrutinize the stage of litigation and the position of co-sharers before advising on such transactions.

Buyers, particularly in partition suits, are reminded that their purchase:

• Does not escape the litigation, and

• Does not shield them from losing part or whole of the property, depending on the final adjudication.

Date of Judgment: 24 November 2025