Bought During a Family Suit: Karnataka High Court on Lis Pendens and Pendente Lite Buyers

On January 21, 2016, two buyers registered a sale deed for a property in the Chikkaballapura area, north of Bengaluru. They bought the entire extent from one member of a family. At the time, a partition suit, O.S. No. 517 of 2015, was already pending in the Chikkaballapura civil court over the same property.

When the plaintiff in that suit later applied to add the buyers as parties, the trial court refused in October 2017. The buyers challenged that refusal in the Karnataka High Court. On October 8, 2026, nearly nine years later, the High Court dismissed their petition. Its reasoning is a compact lesson for anyone in Bengaluru buying land or a house from one member of a family.

The short answer. In Writ Petition No. 2729 of 2020, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that "a transfer of property pendente lite does not, by itself, confer an independent right upon the transferee to obstruct or delay the adjudication of the pending proceedings," and that "any such transfer remains subject to the doctrine of lis pendens and the ultimate outcome of the suit." The buyers' rights under their 2016 sale deed "would necessarily be subject to the decree," though they may take part in final decree proceedings. The trade-off: the law protects the parties to a pending suit, so a buyer who purchases during it takes the property with the risk that the decree will cut down what was bought.

What happened in the Chikkaballapura case?

The plaintiff filed a suit in 2015 for partition and separate possession of the suit property. During its pendency, the buyers say, they purchased the entire extent from the fourth defendant by a registered sale deed dated January 21, 2016. Their case for being made parties rested on the assertion that the property was the fourth defendant's self-acquired property, not something to be divided among the family.

The plaintiff applied under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead the buyers. The trial court rejected that application on October 17, 2017. The plaintiff did not challenge the rejection. The buyers did, by a writ petition filed in 2020.

What did the High Court decide?

The court framed the question as "whether the pendente lite purchasers can insist upon being impleaded as parties to the pending partition suit." It answered no, for two reasons.

First, the principle. A transfer during pendency gives the buyer no independent right to obstruct or delay the suit, and remains subject to lis pendens and the outcome. Second, representation. The seller, the fourth defendant, "is already on record and has filed a written statement contesting the suit." The buyers' interest "is thus represented through their vendor." Whether the property is the seller's self-acquired property "is a matter to be adjudicated in the pending partition suit."

The court dismissed the writ petition but added that this "shall not preclude the petitioners from participating in the final decree proceedings" and "from working out such equitable rights, if any, as may be available to them under the sale deed," subject to the determination of shares and the binding effect of the decree.

What does Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act say?

The doctrine of lis pendens is codified in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It provides that during the pendency of a suit or proceeding, which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable 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."

The explanation to the section fixes the period. Pendency is deemed to begin from the date the plaint is presented or the proceeding is instituted, and to continue until the suit or proceeding is disposed of by a final decree or order and that decree is fully satisfied or becomes unobtainable because the limitation period for execution has expired.

In plain terms, a buyer from a party to a pending property suit steps into the seller's shoes. Whatever the court finally decides about the seller's rights will bind what the buyer holds.

How does a buyer's position compare at each stage?

Can a buyer who purchased during a suit still keep the property?

Yes, if the seller's side wins. A Supreme Court ruling of September 16, 2026, H.G. Pattabi v. K.R. Suraj, shows how. In 1993, a man who had received ancestral lands in Doddamagaravalli village, Chikmagalur taluk, in a family partition sold two survey numbers measuring 1.08 acres and 2.23 acres. After his death in 1995, his wife and sons sued for partition, saying the sale lacked legal necessity and their consent. During that suit, the appellant bought the land from a later purchaser and was impleaded as a defendant.

The trial court dismissed the suit in 2002, finding that the sale proceeds had been used to repay a loan taken to build the family's house in Bengaluru, so the sale was supported by legal necessity. The High Court reversed that in 2010, relying mainly on a son's testimony about his father's alleged vices. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's decree, holding that the High Court was not justified in interfering "merely on the basis of the unsubstantiated allegation." The appellant also testified that he had made enquiries with the widow before buying.

Read together, the two cases show the same rule from both ends. A pendente lite buyer's fate follows the seller's title. In Pattabi, the original sale was upheld, so the later buyer kept the land, more than three decades after the first sale. In the Chikkaballapura case, the outcome still depends on the partition suit.

Why does this matter in Bengaluru's fringe?

As this case shows, a sale by one family member can look clean on paper while another member's partition suit is pending over the same land. PropNewz reported on a related ruling about purchasers and family shares in our report on purchasers in a partition of ancestral land, and explained how to trace ownership in our guide to mother deeds and chain of title.

The Chikkaballapura buyers' argument was that the property was the seller's self-acquired property. That may yet prove right. But the order shows that a buyer who relies on that claim is relying on the seller to win it, in a suit the buyer cannot insist on joining.

What should you check before buying from one family member?

A litigation search before you pay is the main protection. It should cover every person in the chain of title, not just the seller. In both cases described here, the dispute turned on facts inside a family, such as how sale money was used or whether property was self-acquired, that a buyer could only learn by asking and by checking documents.

1. Identify all heirs and co-owners in the family tree, not only the person signing the deed.
2. Search civil court records for suits involving the property and every family member.
3. Ask the seller in writing to declare any pending suit, and keep the declaration with the deed.
4. Read the encumbrance certificate and revenue records for anything that points to a dispute or court order.
5. If the property is said to be self-acquired, ask for the deed by which the seller acquired it.
6. Where other heirs exist, ask for their consent or release deeds in registered form.
7. If a suit is pending, take legal advice before paying anything, and do not rely on the seller's assurance alone.

The buyers here still have a path: they can participate in final decree proceedings and work out any equitable rights under their sale deed. But nearly a decade after they paid, their title depends on a family suit they could not join.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Karnataka High Court decide about pendente lite purchasers?

On October 8, 2026, in Writ Petition No. 2729 of 2020, it held that buyers who purchased during a pending partition suit had no independent right to be impleaded, because a pendente lite transfer is subject to lis pendens and the outcome of the suit, and their seller was already contesting it.

What does Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act provide?

It provides that during a pending, non-collusive suit in which a right to immovable property is directly in question, the property cannot be transferred by any party so as to affect the rights of any other party under the eventual decree, except with the court's authority and on its terms.

Do the buyers lose everything they paid for?

Not necessarily. The court said its dismissal does not stop them from participating in final decree proceedings and working out any equitable rights available under their sale deed, subject to the shares the court determines and the binding effect of the decree passed in the partition suit.

When does pendency of a suit begin and end for lis pendens?

Under the explanation to Section 52, pendency begins when the plaint is presented or the proceeding is instituted, and continues until a final decree or order is passed and fully satisfied, or becomes unenforceable because the limitation period for execution has expired.

Last updated 2026-11-01. PropNewz Team.