Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules on Sale of Disputed Ancestral Land During Pending Litigation

On January 8, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a buyer who acquires disputed land does not need to be included as a party in the title dispute case. The buyer's ownership over the disputed land is automatically subject to the final judgment under the Doctrine of ‘Lis Pendens’ (Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882).

This ruling came about in a case where three brothers were battling their relatives over the title to their ancestral land in Andhra Pradesh. The brothers sought a declaration of title for the lands and wanted to prevent their relatives and their associates from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land through a Permanent Injunction.

However, while the title dispute was still in court, one of the relatives sold a part of the land from his claimed 50% share to Mr. Reddy (the buyer). The relatives claimed that out of 3.45 cents of the ancestral land, he owned 50% and had been in possession of it until it was sold to Mr. Reddy.

At first, the relatives denied executing any deed and even accused the brothers of fabricating a story. But later, one of them confessed in court that he had sold the land, but only from his claimed 50% share of the land and not from the brothers’ portion of the ancestral land.

This relative also acknowledged that on November 5, 2018, he had executed a registered sale deed in favor of Mr. Reddy. Additionally, Mr. Reddy’s name was updated in the property records, confirming his rights to the land. Thus, the brothers wanted to add this buyer as a defendant in their ongoing land title dispute case.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a case filed by three brothers to add a third party (outside buyer) as a defendant in their pending ancestral agricultural land title case. The pending land title case was filed by the brothers against their relatives who claimed to have a 50% share in the ancestral land in Annamayya district, Andhra Pradesh.

During the pendency of the case, one of the relatives (Defendant No.1) admitted that he had sold part of the disputed land to Mr. Reddy (third party outside buyer) through a registered sale deed dated November 5, 2018. The three brothers therefore sought to implead the buyer as Defendant No.7, arguing that his presence was necessary for effective adjudication.

The trial court rejected this request, holding that even if a sale had occurred, it was subject to the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, meaning the purchaser would be bound by the final outcome of the case regardless of whether he was made a party.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the trial court’s order and ruled that a buyer during a pending suit is not a necessary party, as his rights automatically depend on the court’s final decision. Since the buyer would be bound by the final judgment, his non-joinder would not prejudice the title dispute case. The Andhra Pradesh High Court therefore dismissed the case and allowed the main title dispute case to continue without adding the buyer as a defendant.

The Doctrine of Lis Pendens, as explained by Abhiraj Gandhi, Partner at Khaitan & Co, means that if a property is already the subject of a court case, and someone buys or receives that property while the case is still going on, the buyer takes it subject to the court’s final decision. You can buy the property, but you buy the risk. If the court later rules against the seller’s claim, the buyer cannot say, “I wasn’t part of the case, so it doesn’t apply to me.”

The Andhra Pradesh High Court noted that a person who purchases property during litigation is automatically bound by the case outcome under Lis Pendens. Therefore, it is not always necessary to add the new purchaser as a defendant, since the purchaser’s rights are already linked to the final decree, and the original plaintiffs are not automatically harmed just because the purchaser is not on record.

A sale deed executed during an ongoing title dispute is not automatically void, but it is subject to the final result of the case. The buyer is bound by what the court ultimately decides, even if the buyer never becomes a formal party. If the plaintiffs ultimately win and are declared owners, the purchaser cannot use the sale deed to defeat the court decree.

Justice K Sreenivasa Reddy of the Andhra Pradesh High Court said in the judgement (Civil Revision Petition no. 1593/2025) that the point that arises for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is “Whether the impugned Order dated 06.03.2025 in I.A.No.72 of 2025 in O.S.No.3 of 2018 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Rayachoty suffers from any perversity, illegality, irregularity or impropriety of law requiring any interference of this Court?”

The Andhra Pradesh High Court said that Order I CPC prescribes Parties to Suits and Order I Rule 10 CPC deals with a suit in the name of the wrong plaintiff. The Court said that on a plain reading of the above proviso, it enunciates that the Court may direct the impleadment of any party who ought to have been joined or whose presence before the Court may be necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the disputes arose in the proceedings.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court said that as per the contents of the additional written statement, the defendants (relatives) categorically admitted that a Registered Sale Deed, dated November 5, 2018, was executed in favor of proposed party/respondent No.7 (Mr. Peram Thanuj Yaswanth Reddy). Therefore, the plaintiffs (three brothers) contend that the proposed party is a subsequent purchaser and his impleadment to the suit proceedings is very much essential, as he is a proper and necessary party to the suit proceedings.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court said that a subsequent purchaser is often considered a proper party, although not always a necessary party without whom the suit cannot proceed. A proper party is someone whose presence enables the Court to completely and effectively adjudicate all the issues involved.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court said that indisputably, transfer of property during the pendency of a suit is subject to the Doctrine of Lis Pendens (Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882) i.e., the purchaser is bound by the decision of the Court, even if they were not formally added as a party. It is a settled law that it is open to the Court to add any such person as a necessary party in the suit to enable the Court to effectively adjudicate the question involved in the suit. However, for the exercise of power under this Rule, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has to come to a finding that the party is a necessary or proper party. Therefore, the addition of parties would depend upon the judicial discretion which has to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court said that the present case was filed for declaration, to declare the right and title of the plaintiffs (brothers) over the schedule property. The plaintiffs were disputing the right and title of defendants over the schedule property. When such is the case, transfer of property or selling the part of schedule property to proposed party/respondent No.7 during the pendency of suit proceeding, is subject to the Doctrine of Lis Pendens i.e., the proposed party/respondent No.7 (Mr. Reddy) is bound by the decision of the Court, even if he was not formally added as a party. Mr. Reddy cannot be added as a party defendant to the suit, merely because he would be incidentally affected by the outcome of the suit proceedings.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court said that this property (lands) is situated at YSR District in S.No.170/1 to an extent of Ac.0.88 cents out of Ac.1.32 cents, S.No.170/2 to an extent of Ac.1.16 cents, and S.No.32 to an extent of Ac.3.45 cents. As per the contents of the additional written statement of the 1st defendant (one of the relatives), the schedule property in S.No.32 does not exclusively belong to the plaintiffs (brothers) and he got half share in it and he was in possession and enjoyment of his share till its alienation in favor of proposed party/respondent No.7 (Mr. Reddy) vide Registered Sale Deed, dated 05.11.2018. As per the contents of the additional written statement, the 1st defendant concedes that he sold the part of schedule property to the proposed party/respondent No.7.