Skip to main content

lis pendens in TPA

 Doctrine of Lis pendens in Transfer of Property Act

By Shreya Verma


The word ‘lis pendens’ is formed of two words 'lis' which means litigation and 'pendens' which means pending. It is principle of English common law and is based on the principle of equity in law. The doctrine of lis pendens is based on the well-known legal maxim 'pendente lite nihil innovature' which means nothing new shall be introduced while a litigation is pending. 

The purpose of Lis pendens is based on the rule of necessity because it prohibits parties from disposing of the disputed property which could interfere with judicial proceeding. 

It was held in Bellamy vs. Sabine (1857) by Turner L.J., That if, Lis pendens is allowed then it will directly or indirectly affect the justice and thus is a rule of necessity. 

If allowed, then it may cause a gross inconvenience as the parties will enter into transfer, while the pendency of litigation, in order to get the disputed property out of the jurisdiction of the court. This was the opinion of the apex court and Rajinder Singh vs. Santa Singh (1973). 

Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1889 incorporates the principle of Lis pendens by prohibiting any transfer during the pendency of suit. 

Section 52: 

  • A suit regarding rights over and immovable property is pending in court of competent jurisdiction. 

  • Any of the party to suit transfer that property with or without consideration to some other person by the suit was still pending. Such suit shall not be conclusive in nature. 

  • Transferee is thereby bound by the judgement of the court. 

Section 52 does not invalidate transfer to bonafide transferee rather it binds the transferee with the decision of the court. It was held in- Thomson press India vs. Nanak Builders and investors (2013) that section 52 does not render conveyance invalid but it makes a transfer subservient to the judgement. 

It is essential for the principle of Lis pendens to apply that the suit must not be collusive. That is, it must not be brought into between the parties with collusion to defraud third person. eg. ‘A’ the owner of a house colluded with ‘B’, the tenant by virtue of which, ‘B’ declared himself as the owner. ‘A’ brought a Suit against him. Meanwhile, ‘B’ sold the property to ‘C’. They divided the transfer money among them and when the judgement came the court declared ‘C’ as the owner. Here, since the suit was collusive so that transfer in favour of ‘C’ is not invalid and will not be hit by S.52. 

Also, for Section 52 to apply, it is necessity that transfer must be made during the pendency of suit. eg. ‘A’ filed Suit against ‘B’ u/S. 6 of specific Relief Act, claiming right to possession over the property. But Court rejected the plea on the want of jurisdiction. Meanwhile, ‘B’ gives the property to ‘C’ on lease. Later, ‘A’ filed suit in court with proper jurisdiction. Here the transfer is does not attract the provision of section 52 the because transfer was not made during the pendency of suit. 

Suit is pending in court from the date of filing of plaint till the final disposition of the decree. Thus, suit filed even during appeal or execution proceeding is hit by the provision of section 52. 

Transfer under Sec. 52 must affect the rights of the other party i.e., if a suit is A vs. B & C, then in case transfer by ‘B’, ‘C’ cannot ask for pendente lite, however, ‘A’ can. Other party here means a party to suit and not the third party. 

Also transfer can be involuntary (i.e., by courts order) or by the act of  the parties in form of sale, lease, gift, etc. And person can make such transfer with permission of the court and it is not hit by section 52. 

Effect of section 52 is that transfer during pendency of suit remains valid but it is subservient to the outcome of judgement. Which means that, the transfer to be affected only if it is in favour of the transferor.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more