Doctrine of lis pendent

 DOCTRINE OF LIS PENDENT

‘Lis suggests that ‘litigation’ and ‘pendent’ that means ‘pending’. So, lis pendent would mean ‘pending litigation’. The ism of lis pendent is expressed within the well-known maxim: pendent fatless nail pioneer, which suggests ‘during pendency of legal proceeding, nothing new ought to be introduced”. beneath this ism, the principle is that in pendency of any

suit relating to title of a property, any new interest in respect of that property shouldn't be created. Therefore, in essence, the ism of lis pendent prohibits the transfer of property unfinished legal proceeding. it's an awfully previous ism and has been in operation within the English Common Law. beneath this is the judgments within the unmovable properties were considered preponderant any alienation created by the parties throughout pendency of legal proceeding. the premise of lis pendent is ‘necessary’ instead of actual or constructive notice. it should be aforementioned that this ism relies on notice as a result of an unfinished suit is considered constructive notice of the very fact of controversial title of the property beneath legal proceeding. Therefore, somebody handling that property, unfinished legal proceeding, should be sure by the choice of the Court. however, the right read is that lis pendent is supported on ‘necessity’. For administration of justice, it's necessary that whereas any suit continues to be unfinished in a very Court of law relating to title of a property, the litigants shouldn't be allowed to require call and transfer the controversial property. Lis pendent is, therefore, supported ‘necessity’ and as a matter of public policy it prevents the parties from taking away a controversial property in such manner on interfere with Court’s proceedings. the premise of the ism is explained in Bellamy v. Sabine River Turner, LJ: “It is, as I think, an ism common to the Courts each of law and Equity and rests as I apprehend, on the inspiration that it might plainly be not possible that any action or suit may be delivered to a no-hit termination, if alienations pendent fatless were allowable to prevail. The complainant would be liable in each case to be defeated by the defendants antagonistic before the judgment or decree, and would be driven to start his proceedings First State novo, subject once more to be defeated by identical course of proceedings.” The rule contained in Section fifty-two of the Transfer of Property Act is, however, not supported the ism of notice, however on expedience. The lis pendent rule doesn't annul the transfer however renders it subservient to the rights of the parties to the legal proceeding. per this rule, therefore, whosoever purchases a property throughout the pendency of a suit is sure by the judgment that will be created against the person from whom he derived title, despite the fact that such a buyer wasn't a celebration to the action or had no notice of the unfinished legal proceeding. Section fifty-two embodies the ism of lies pendent (pending legal proceeding) as expressed within the maxim Ut fatless pendent nail innoveteur which suggests nothing new ought to be introduced in unfinished litigation. As a principal equity, justice and smart conscience, this rule applies even wherever the Act doesn't apply.