The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that the sale or transfer of property during the pendency of a civil suit does not extinguish the plaintiff’s cause of action, affirming the enduring effect of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. This ruling reinforces procedural stability in property disputes and prevents defendants from exploiting post-filing alienations to derail litigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, defendants in a civil suit over title to immovable property, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint. They contended that the plaintiff had alienated the disputed property during the pendency of the suit, thereby extinguishing the cause of action. The applicants argued that since the subject matter no longer remained in the plaintiff’s possession, the suit had become infructuous and deserved dismissal at the threshold.
Procedural History
- 2022: Civil Suit No. 1065A/2022 filed by plaintiff asserting title to the property
- 2025: Plaintiff allegedly executed a sale deed in favor of a third party
- September 10, 2025: Trial Court rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that plaint averments alone govern such applications
- 2025: Civil Revision No. 1384 of 2025 filed before the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
Relief Sought
The applicants sought dismissal of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that no cause of action remained due to alienation of the property.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the alienation of the subject matter of a civil suit during its pendency automatically extinguishes the cause of action, rendering the plaint liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, despite the protective provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel for the applicants argued that once the plaintiff parted with ownership of the property, the foundational basis of the suit vanished. They relied on the principle that a suit must be maintainable on the date of filing and at all material times thereafter. They contended that allowing the suit to proceed after alienation would render the decree nugatory and encourage abuse of process.
For the Respondent
The State Advocate countered that the plaint did not reflect any amendment or disclosure of alienation, and under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, courts must confine themselves to the averments in the plaint. Further, the respondent emphasized that even if alienation occurred, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act ensures that any transferee is bound by the outcome of the suit, preserving the efficacy of the litigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a statutory interpretation of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It held that the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 is strictly limited to the contents of the plaint as filed. The trial court correctly refused to look beyond the pleadings to assess extrinsic facts such as alleged alienation.
"It is not the case of parties that alienation (if any) has taken place with permission of the Court. Whether plaintiff has alienated the property or he has executed a sham document is not the subject matter of this controversy, but one thing is clear that even if he has sold the property, still it would not mean that the cause of action has come to an end because in the light of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the subsequent purchasers would be bound by the decree."
The Court emphasized that Section 52 operates as a statutory fiction: any transfer made during litigation binds the transferee to the decree, regardless of whether the transfer was bona fide or collusive. This doctrine ensures that litigation is not rendered futile by post-filing transfers. The applicants failed to cite any precedent holding that alienation extinguishes cause of action in the face of Section 52. The Court concluded that the trial court’s refusal to reject the plaint was legally sound and procedurally correct.
The Verdict
The revision was dismissed. The Court held that alienation of property during litigation does not extinguish the cause of action where Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies, and that Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot be invoked to reject a plaint based on facts outside the pleadings.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Cause of Action Is Not Terminated by Post-Filing Alienation
- Practitioners must now argue that even if a plaintiff transfers property after filing suit, the suit remains maintainable under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act
- Defendants cannot use post-filing transfers as a ground for early dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- The burden shifts to the defendant to prove fraud or collusion if challenging the validity of the transfer
Pleadings Govern Order 7 Rule 11 Applications
- Courts must confine their review to the averments in the plaint; extrinsic evidence of alienation is irrelevant at this stage
- Any claim of alienation must be raised through amendment or evidence at trial, not as a threshold objection
- Plaintiffs are not obligated to disclose subsequent events unless formally amending the plaint
Section 52 Overrides Practical Concerns About Enforcement
- A decree remains enforceable against transferees even if the property is sold to a third party during litigation
- This protects plaintiffs from strategic asset-stripping by defendants or even plaintiffs themselves
- Practitioners should routinely cite Section 52 in opposition to applications seeking dismissal on grounds of alienation
