Doctrine of Lis Pendens
Doctrine of Lis Pendens
Doctrine of Lis Pendens
PENDENS
BY KHUSHI SONI
(BC0220024)
INTRODUCTION
The doctrine of lis pendens is an old doctrine that has been in
operation since the period of English common law. In the word
lis pendens, ‘lis’ means litigation, and 'pendens' means
pending. Based on a maxim which means nothing new should
be introduced during the pendency of litigation. This doctrine
prohibits the transfer of property in pending litigation.
UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was based on this doctrine. Section 52 of the
act states that “Of any suit or proceedings 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 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.”
CONDITIONS
The apex court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw V. Farida Khatoon stated the required
elements for the applicability of the rule of lis pendens under section 52.
■ The instituted suit should be filed under a court with competent jurisdiction.
■ It only cannot affect the rights of any other party to the suit under any decree or order
that may be made in the suit or proceedings.
■ Section 52 creates only a right to be enforced to avoid a transfer made while the
litigation is pending because such transfers are not void but voidable.
■ Thus the effect of the rule of lis pendent is not to invalidate or avoid the transfer, but
to make it subject to the result of the litigation.
JUDICIAL OBSERVATIONS
In the case of Simla Banking Industrial Co. Ltd. V. Firm Luddar Mal, Tek Chand It was
stated that the lis pendens rule sets out that the person who has bought the property
under the pendency of suit is bound to the judgment that might be made against the
individual from whom he inferred his title even though such a buyer was not allowed
involved with the activity or had no notice of pending prosecution.
In the case of Bellamy vs Sabine, it was stated that the right to notify the transferee is
not a requirement as it affects him not because it amounts to notice, but because the law
does not allow litigant parties to give to others pending the litigation rights to the property
in dispute to harm the opposite party.
CONCLUSION
The essence of this section is that a transaction made during the pendency of the suit by
a party to the suit should not harm the interest of the other party. The doctrine of lis
pendens is strictly based on the theory of necessity. It ensures that justice will be
provided without injuring the rights of either party.
THANK YOU