Property Seller During Pendency Of Suit Does Not Lose Locus To Prosecute Case Unless Restrained By Court: Karnataka High Court

"Not reporting the sale in the absence of any court order restraining such sale, does not render the transaction invalid or the seller does not lose the locus to prosecute or defend the proceeding." Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a party who sells the disputed property during the pendency of a litigation does not lose the locus standi to prosecute or defend the proceedings, provided there is no court order restraining such alienation.

A single-judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde observed that while it is fair and appropriate to disclose such transactions to the court, the absence of a statutory mandate means the non-disclosure does not invalidate the sale, though the purchaser's rights remain strictly subject to the final outcome of the litigation.

The dispute arose over a claim for the re-grant of land in Bengaluru South Taluk under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. The petitioner, Kadiri Narasamma, claimed the re-grant as the heir of her husband, whose ancestor was allegedly the original village office holder. She approached the High Court challenging a District Court order that had set aside a Tahsildar's re-grant in her favour and instead directed the re-grant to the legal heirs of her father, Narasimhaiah, with the ultimate benefit going to a third-party purchaser who had bought the land from Narasimhaiah in 1971.

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioner, having sold the property during the pendency of the lower court proceedings, had lost her locus standi to challenge the adverse order. The court was also called upon to determine whether the petitioner had successfully established that her ancestor was a "Holder of a village office" under the Act of 1961 to be eligible for the statutory re-grant.

Addressing the preliminary objection regarding the petitioner selling the land pendente lite in 2014, the court clarified that the sale of property during ongoing proceedings is not inherently barred unless expressly prohibited by a judicial injunction. The bench distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in H. Anjanappa and Others v. A. Prabhakar and Others, clarifying that restrictions and procedural hurdles on pendente lite transfers primarily affect the purchaser who attempts to step into the shoes of the original party, not the original seller's right to continue the litigation to its logical conclusion. The judge emphasized that the purchaser's rights will simply be subject to the result of the proceeding.

"Said Kadari Narasamma is not a pendente lite purchaser. She is pendente lite seller. The ratio in H. Anjanappa and others (supra), applies to the pendente lite purchaser."

Turning to the substantive merits of the re-grant claim, the court scrutinized the documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner, specifically an extract of the barabaluti register (a record of village officers). The bench noted glaring discrepancies, observing that the extract was issued by the Tahsildar of Bengaluru North Taluk, whereas the property was situated in Bengaluru South Taluk. Furthermore, critical columns pertaining to survey numbers and land extent were left entirely blank, and the original village name had been struck off and manually replaced. Relying on an affidavit from the Tahsildar confirming that no such Thoti Inamti register was actively maintained for that region, the court held that the petitioner completely failed to discharge the burden of proving her ancestor's status as a valid village office holder.

"The extract of barabaluti register marked at Annexure-B is doubted on the ground that it is issued by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk though the property is located in Bengaluru South Taluk... no other document is available to hold that Sy.No.3 was possessed by Byla as Holder of village office."

The court also evaluated the legal status of Narasimhaiah, from whom the first respondent had purchased the land in 1971. The bench rejected the District Court's finding that the receipt of tastik (emolument) payments by Narasimhaiah from 1987 to 2004 established him as the Barwardar (office holder). The court noted that under the jurisprudence of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, rights must be determined strictly as of the appointed date of the statute, which is February 1, 1963, and subsequent payments cannot retroactively create statutory rights. The court further noted the distinction between a mere "Officiator" and a "Holder of village office", referencing the coordinate bench decision in Deshaiah v. Chinnaswamy.

"The learned District Judge has referred to the tastik payment made from 1987 to 2004. Said finding is untenable as the right of the person claiming re-grant is to be determined with reference to the rights possessed by the applicant as on the appointed date i.e. on 01.02.1963."

Despite finding that neither the petitioner's ancestor nor the respondent's vendor were conclusively proven to be the absolute holders of the village office, the court weighed the equities of the prolonged litigation. The bench observed that the purchaser had been in uninterrupted possession for over five decades since 1971, relying on revenue entries. The State had never initiated steps to resume the land, and the other direct legal heirs of the vendor had formally relinquished their claims. Consequently, the court found no legal or equitable justification to disturb the purchaser's settled possession at the instance of a petitioner who relied on highly doubtful documents and failed to establish her own title.

"The Court is of the view that the possession held by the purchaser from Narasimhaiah since 1971 should not be disturbed in a proceeding filed by Kadari Narasamma who did not acquire any right over the property for the reasons already discussed."

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, thereby protecting the five-decade-long possession of the first respondent. Recognizing the systemic failure in maintaining crucial historical land records, the court issued a specific administrative direction to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to take immediate steps to trace the original barabaluti registers and submit a compliance report to the High Court Registry within three months.

Date of Decision: 27 March 2026