In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has laid down crucial guidelines regarding the rights of non-parties seeking leave to appeal against judicial decrees. The ruling came in the case of H. Anjanappa & Ors. v. A. Prabhakar & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 1180-1181 and 1182-1183 of 2025), where the Court set aside a Karnataka High Court order that had permitted subsequent purchasers to file an appeal despite their exclusion from the original suit.
Background of the Case
The dispute revolved around a property transaction in Bagalur Village, Bangalore North Taluk, where the original owner, Late Smt. Daisy Shanthappa, had entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs (H. Anjanappa & Ors.) in 1995 for ₹20 lakh. However, during the subsistence of this agreement, the owner allegedly sold a significant portion of the land to a third party (Defendant No. 3), who subsequently sold parts of the property to Respondents 1 & 2 in violation of an injunction order passed by the trial court.
The plaintiffs had filed a suit (O.S. No. 458/2006) for specific performance of the original sale agreement, which was decreed in their favor by the Trial Court in 2016. An appeal filed by Defendant No. 3 was dismissed, effectively upholding the decree. Subsequently, Respondents 1 & 2—who had purchased portions of the property despite the injunction—sought to challenge the decree through an appeal.
The Karnataka High Court condoned a 586-day delay in their appeal and granted them leave to appeal against the decree, citing their interest as subsequent purchasers. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiffs approached the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues and Observations of the Supreme Court
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan examined whether the High Court was justified in condoning the delay and granting leave to appeal to non-parties.
1. Leave to Appeal by Non-Parties:
The Court reiterated that only a person directly aggrieved by a decree or prejudicially affected by it can seek leave to appeal. The judgment clarified that non-parties do not have an automatic right to challenge a decree unless they meet strict legal criteria.
2. Doctrine of Lis Pendens (Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882):
The Court emphasized that a transfer of property made during the pendency of a suit is subject to the final outcome of the litigation. In this case, Respondents 1 & 2 had purchased the property despite a pending dispute and a court-ordered injunction, making their claim legally weak.
3. Rejection of Impleadment Application as Final:
The Court noted that Respondents 1 & 2 had previously filed an application to be impleaded as parties to the suit, which was rejected by the trial court in 2014 and remained unchallenged. This, the Supreme Court held, precluded them from later seeking leave to appeal, as the issue had already attained finality.
4. Delay Cannot Be Condoned Lightly:
The Court took strong exception to the unexplained 586-day delay in filing the appeal. It ruled that the Karnataka High Court erred in condoning the delay without a convincing explanation. The judgment stated:
“The High Court committed an egregious error in condoning the delay on mere asking. It should have put an end to the entire litigation by declining to condone the delay itself.”
5. Binding Nature of the Decree:
The Court reaffirmed that a decree binds all parties and subsequent purchasers who acquire the property during litigation. Such purchasers cannot later claim ignorance or seek relief contrary to the existing decree.
Supreme Court’s Decision
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the original plaintiffs (H. Anjanappa & Ors.). It held that:
– Respondents 1 & 2 had no independent right to appeal since their impleadment application had already been rejected.
– The delay of 586 days was inordinate and unjustified.
– The principle of lis pendens applied, and the subsequent purchasers were bound by the decree.
– If Respondents 1 & 2 felt they had been defrauded by their vendor (Defendant No. 3), they could pursue a separate legal remedy to recover their money but could not interfere with the already concluded litigation.
