Doctrine of Lis pendens : Transfer of Property

The importance of lis pendens is - 'a pending lawful activity', wherein Lis implies the 'suit' and Pendens signifies 'proceeding or pending'. The convention has been gotten from a latin proverb "Ut swinging nihil innovetur" which implies that during prosecution nothing ought to be changed. Segment. 52 Transfer of Property Act, gives doctorine of Lis pendens . It is a Latin expression it means move during pending case. This teaching puts confinement on the Transfer of Property during the pendency of the suit in a court skillful to attempt it. 


Move of Property pending suit relating thereto - Section.52-during the pendency in any Court including specialist inside the points of confinement of barring the province of Jammu and Kashmir, or built up past such cutoff points, by the focal administration of any suit or continuing which isn't Collusive and in which any privilege to removable property is straightforwardly and explicitly being referred to, the property can't be moved or generally managed by any gathering to the suit or continuing to influence the privilege of some other gathering thereto under any announcement which possibly made in that , aside from under the expert of the court and on such terms as it might force . 


The guideline encapsulating the said tenet is that the topic of a suit ought not be moved to an outsider during the pendency of the suit. If there should be an occurrence of exchange of such steadfast property, the transferee ends up bound by the aftereffect of the suit. 


The tenet of Lis Pendens esstentially goes for (I) maintaining a strategic distance from perpetual suit, (ii) ensuring either gathering to the prosecution against the demonstration of the other, (iii) keeping away from maltreatment of lawful procedure. 


Lis Pendens is caught under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (the "Demonstration"). The Section basically forbids estrangement of steadfast property when a debate identifying with the equivalent is pending in an equipped official courtroom. It depends on the rule that the individual obtaining a resolute property from the judgment account holder during the pendency of the suit has no autonomous appropriate to property to oppose, hinder or object execution of an announcement .


The Supreme Court in a three Judge Bench in Dev Raj Dogra and others v. Gyan Chand Jain and others interpreted the importance of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and set down after conditions: 


1) A suit or a procedure wherein any privilege to enduring property is straightforwardly and explicitly being referred to must be pending; 

2) The suit or continuing ought to be pending in a Court of able purview; 

3) The suit or the procedure ought not be a tricky one; 

4) Case must be one in which ideal to steady property is straightforwardly and explicitly being referred to; 


Any exchange of such steady property or any managing such property during the pendency of the suit is denied aside from under the specialist of Court, if such exchange or generally managing the property by any gathering to the suit or continuing influences the privilege of some other gathering to the suit or continuing under any request or pronouncement which might be passed in the said suit or continuing. 


In Rajender Singh and Ors. v. Santa Clause Singh and Ors, it was seen by the Supreme Court that the convention of lis pendens was proposed to strike at endeavors by gatherings to a suit to bypass the purview of a Court, in which a debate on rights or interests in relentless property is pending, by private dealings which may evacuate the topic of prosecution from the ambit of the court's capacity to choose a pending contest or disappoint its declaration. Alienees procuring any resolute property during pending prosecution, are held to be bound by a use of the teaching, by the announcement go in the suit despite the fact that they might not have been impleaded in it. The entire object of the convention of lis pendens is to expose gatherings to the prosecution just as others, who try to obtain rights in ardent property, which are the topic of suit, to the power and locale of the Court in order to avert the object of a pending activity from being crushed. 


In Lov Raj Kumar v. Dr. Major Daya Shanker and Ors. the Delhi High Court saw that the 'standards contained in Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act are as per the rule of value, great inner voice or equity, since they rest upon a fair and just establishment, that it will be difficult to carry an activity or suit to an effective end if estrangements are allowed to win. Permitting distances made during pendency of a suit or an activity to thrashing privileges of a Plaintiff will pay premium to intelligence of a Defendant and in this way rout the finishes of equity and discard all standards of value'.

Leave a Reply