‭Meaning of Doctrine of Lis Pendens‬

‭ .‬ ‭Lis‬ ‭means ‘litigation’ and‬‭pendens‬‭means ‘pending’.‬

1
‭2.‬ ‭Hence,‬‭lis pendens‬‭refers to ‘pending litigation’.‬
‭3.‬ ‭The doctrine is expressed by the Latin maxim‬‭“pendente‬‭lite nihil‬
‭innovetur,”‬‭which translates to‬‭“during the pendency‬‭of litigation,‬
‭nothing new should be introduced.”‬
‭4.‬ ‭The principle under this doctrine is that‬‭during the‬‭pendency of any suit‬
‭concerning the title of a property‬‭, no new interest‬‭in the said property‬
‭should be created.‬
‭5.‬ ‭Therefore,‬‭the doctrine prohibits the transfer of‬‭property during the‬
‭pendency of litigation‬‭related to it.‬
‭6.‬ ‭It is an‬‭old doctrine‬‭, with roots in‬‭English Common‬‭Law‬‭.‬
‭7.‬ ‭Under this doctrine, judgments concerning immovable properties are‬
‭regarded as overriding any alienation‬‭made by the‬‭parties during the‬
‭pendency of litigation.‬

‭Principle‬

‭1.‬ ‭Section 52‬ ‭of the‬‭Transfer of Property Act, 1882‬‭embodies‬‭the doctrine of‬
‭lis pendens‬‭(pending litigation) as expressed by the‬‭maxim‬‭“pendente‬
‭lite nihil innovetur”‬‭.‬
‭○‬ ‭This means that‬‭nothing new should be introduced during‬‭the‬
‭pendency of litigation‬‭.‬
‭2.‬ ‭As a principle of‬‭equity, justice, and good conscience‬‭,‬‭this rule applies‬
‭even when the Transfer of Property Act does not apply.‬

‭Judicial Explanations‬

‭●‬ I‭n the case of‬‭Bellamy v. Sabine‬‭,‬‭Turner, L.J.‬‭explained‬‭the foundation of‬

‭this doctrine:‬
‭○‬ ‭The doctrine is based on the reasoning that‬‭it would‬‭be impossible‬
‭for any suit to reach a successful conclusion if alienations‬
‭(transfers of property) pendente lite (during litigation) were‬
‭allowed to prevail‬‭.‬
‭○‬ ‭In such cases, the‬‭plaintiff would be continuously‬‭defeated‬‭by the‬
‭defendant’s ability to transfer the property before judgment, forcing‬
‭the plaintiff to restart the legal proceedings repeatedly.‬
 ‭●‬ T ‭ he‬‭doctrine is based on expediency‬‭, and it is‬‭immaterial whether the‬
‭transferee (the person receiving the property) had knowledge of the‬
‭pending litigation or not‬‭.‬
‭●‬ ‭The‬‭Privy Council‬‭in the case of‬‭Faiyaz Hussain Khan‬‭v. Prag Narain‬
‭fully expounded this doctrine, approving the observations made by‬‭Lord‬
‭Justice Turner‬‭in‬‭Bellamy v. Sabine‬‭.‬

‭Origin of the Doctrine of Lis Pendens‬

‭ he Doctrine of Lis Pendens originated from the case of‬‭Bellamy vs. Sabine‬
T
‭(1857)‬‭, where Lord Justice Turner explained the rationale‬‭behind it:‬

“‭ This is a doctrine common to law and equity courts, which I‬

‭apprehend, on the grounds that, if alienation pendente lite was allowed‬
‭to prevail, it would simply not be possible for any action or suit to be‬
‭resolved successfully.”‬

I‭n simpler terms, Turner highlighted that if property could be sold or transferred‬
‭while litigation was pending, it would make resolving disputes impossible. The‬
‭plaintiff would always be at a disadvantage, and fresh proceedings would have to‬
‭be initiated every time a defendant transferred the property during the suit.‬

‭Key Facts of Bellamy vs. Sabine (1857)‬

‭‬ M
● ‭ r. X‬‭sold immovable property to‬‭Mr. A‬‭.‬
‭●‬ ‭Mr. Z‬‭, son of Mr. X and the rightful heir, sued‬‭Mr.‬‭A‬‭in a competent court to‬
‭declare the sale void.‬
‭●‬ ‭During the litigation,‬‭Mr. A‬‭sold the property to‬‭Mr. B‬‭, who was unaware of‬
‭the ongoing suit.‬

‭Court’s Decision:‬

‭‬ T
● ‭ he court held that‬‭Mr. Z‬‭, the rightful heir, was‬‭entitled to the property.‬
‭●‬ ‭Mr. B‬‭did not acquire any valid title, as‬‭Mr. A‬‭sold‬‭the property during‬
‭litigation and thus did not have a valid title to pass.‬
‭ his case solidified the principle that a transfer of property during litigation does‬
T
‭not convey valid ownership to the transferee if the court later rules in favor of the‬
‭plaintiff.‬

‭Principle and Evolution‬

‭ rom this case, the principle evolved into‬‭Section‬‭52 of the Transfer of‬
F
‭Property Act, 1882‬‭, which enshrines the doctrine of‬‭Lis Pendens‬‭:‬

‭●‬ I‭f a lawsuit is ongoing in any competent court in India regarding immovable‬
‭property, any transfer or sale of the property by a party to the suit‬‭cannot‬
‭affect‬‭the rights of the other party without court‬‭permission.‬

‭Latin Maxim‬

‭The doctrine is based on the maxim‬‭"Pendente lite‬‭nihil innovature"‬‭, meaning:‬

‭"Nothing new must be introduced during pending litigation."‬

‭Objective of the Doctrine‬

‭The purpose of Lis Pendens is to:‬

‭1.‬ ‭Prevent conflicts‬‭: It avoids multiple proceedings‬‭if property changes‬

‭hands during litigation.‬
‭2.‬ ‭Protect rights‬‭: Ensures that any rights in immovable‬‭property under‬
‭dispute remain protected until the court's final judgment.‬
‭3.‬ ‭Maintain order‬‭: Stabilizes legal disputes involving‬‭property by ensuring no‬
‭party can undermine court proceedings by selling or transferring the‬
‭property mid-suit.‬

‭ he‬‭doctrine restricts the transfer of property‬‭when‬‭there is ongoing litigation‬

T
‭involving rights or title to the property. Any transfer made during this period is‬
‭subordinate to the court’s final judgment‬‭.‬
‭Key Elements for the applicability of the Doctrine of Lis Pendens‬

‭1.‬ ‭Litigation Must be Pending in a Court of Competent Jurisdiction‬

‭○‬ ‭A suit‬‭commences upon the filing of the plaint‬‭and‬‭c‬‭ontinues until a final decree‬
‭or order is passed‬‭.‬‭Even if the decree is appealable‬‭or execution is pending, the‬
‭suit is considered pending.‬
‭○‬ ‭Example: A dispute over property X between A and B, where A sells the property‬
‭while the decree is still appealable. The transfer will be governed by Section 52,‬
‭and any subsequent transfers are subject to the final outcome of the suit.‬
‭○‬ ‭Court of Competent Jurisdiction‬‭:‬
‭■‬ ‭The suit must be pending before a court with the jurisdiction to try the‬
‭case (territorial, pecuniary, or subject matter).‬
‭■‬ ‭If the court lacks jurisdiction, the doctrine does not apply.‬
‭■‬ ‭Example: A court returns a plaint due to lack of jurisdiction. Any transfer‬
‭before re-filing the case before a competent court is not subject to the‬
‭doctrine.‬
‭2.‬ ‭The Suit Must Relate to Rights in Specific Immovable Property‬
‭○‬ ‭The doctrine applies only to immovable property disputes, such as title,‬
‭possession, or right of alienation.‬
‭○‬ ‭Applicable in cases of sale, specific performance, mortgage, easements, etc.‬
‭○‬ ‭Not applicable‬‭to suits concerning movable property,‬‭debts, rents, or accounts.‬
‭3.‬ ‭The Suit Should Not Be Collusive‬
‭○‬ ‭Collusive suits (where parties conspire to defeat the rights of a transferee) do not‬
‭attract the doctrine.‬
‭○‬ ‭Example: A and B file a sham suit regarding B’s property, intending to transfer it‬
‭to a third party, C. Since the suit is collusive, the transfer is not affected by the‬
‭doctrine.‬
‭4.‬ ‭Property Should Not be Transferred or Otherwise Dealt With‬
‭○‬ ‭The term "transfer" includes absolute and partial transfers (sale, lease, mortgage)‬
‭under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. "Otherwise dealt with" covers cases not‬
‭directly under the Act, like partitions.‬
‭○‬ ‭Any transfer without the court’s permission during litigation is subject to the‬
‭outcome of the suit.‬
‭○‬ ‭Court Permission‬‭: Transfers made with the court’s‬‭approval are not affected by‬
‭the doctrine.‬
‭5.‬ ‭By Any Party to the Suit‬
 ‭○‬ T ‭ he transfer must be made by a party to the suit, i.e., plaintiffs, defendants, or‬
‭their legal representatives. Transfers by non-parties are not affected.‬
‭○‬ ‭Example: B, who manages property X for A, sells it to C. If C is not a party to the‬
‭suit, the doctrine does not apply to the sale to Y.‬
‭6.‬ ‭So As to Affect the Rights of Any Party to the Suit‬
‭○‬ ‭The doctrine applies if the transfer affects the rights of a party to the suit.‬
‭○‬ ‭Example: A landlord transfers a property involved in a rent dispute with a tenant.‬
‭The transfer would not invoke Lis Pendens as it does not affect the tenant's‬
‭rights.‬
‭ .‬ ‭Till the Final Disposal of the Case‬
7
‭○‬ ‭The doctrine ceases to apply when the suit is finally disposed of, meaning there‬
‭is no further appeal or pending decree execution.‬
‭○‬ ‭Any transfer after the final resolution is not subject to Section 52.‬

‭Effect of Transfer during Lis Pendens‬

‭●‬ S
‭ ection 52 is‬‭prohibitive‬‭, meaning property cannot‬‭be transferred or dealt with during‬
‭the pendency of a suit. However, transfers made during the suit are not‬‭void‬‭, but‬
‭voidable‬‭. The transferee’s rights are subject to the‬‭court's final decision. Thus, transfers‬
‭during the suit do not prevent alienation but bind the transferee to the outcome of the‬
‭litigation.‬

‭Notice and Good Faith‬

‭●‬ S
‭ ection 52 operates on public policy, meaning that no question of good faith or notice‬
‭arises. A transferee cannot claim protection under‬‭Section 43‬‭of the Transfer of Property‬
‭Act, 1882, which deals with‬‭feeding the grant by estoppel‬‭.‬
‭○‬ ‭The pending suit acts as a notice to any transferee, meaning whether they were‬
‭aware of the suit or not is irrelevant.‬
‭○‬ ‭Example: A property is transferred to C while litigation between A and B is‬
‭ongoing. C cannot claim the property under Section 43, as the suit itself serves‬
‭as notice.‬

‭Exception‬

‭●‬ ‭The court may allow the transfer of property during litigation under terms it deems fit.‬
‭○‬ ‭Example: In‬‭Amarnath v. Deputy Director of Consolidation‬‭,‬‭the court held that‬
‭even parties not formally impleaded in the suit could be affected by the judgment‬
‭if it impacts their rights.‬
 ‭○‬ S
‭ imilarly, in‬‭Fayaz Husain Khan v. Prag Narain‬‭, a prior mortgage extinguished‬
‭the rights of a subsequent mortgagee even though the latter was not a party to‬
‭the suit.‬

‭https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/The-Doctrine-of-Lis-Pendens‬

‭ his‬‭doctrine‬‭does‬‭not‬‭apply‬‭mechanically‬‭as‬‭soon‬‭as‬‭there‬‭is‬‭a‬‭suit‬‭pending‬‭concerning‬
T
‭immovable‬ ‭property,‬ ‭but‬ ‭rather‬ ‭there‬ ‭are‬ ‭certain‬ ‭essential‬ ‭conditions‬ ‭that‬ ‭need‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬
‭fulfilled.‬ ‭Hon'ble‬ ‭Justice‬ ‭A.‬ ‭N.‬ ‭Sen‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭matter‬ ‭of‬ ‭Dev‬ ‭Raj‬ ‭Dogra‬ ‭and‬ ‭Ors.‬ ‭vs.‬ ‭Gyan‬
‭Chand‬‭Jain‬‭and‬‭Ors.‬‭8‬ ‭had‬‭listed‬‭down‬‭three‬‭essential‬‭conditions‬‭for‬‭the‬‭implementation‬
‭of the doctrine-‬

‭1.‬ A ‭ suit or a proceeding in which any right to immovable property must directly and‬
‭specifically in question must be pending;‬
‭2.‬ ‭The suit or the proceeding shall not be a collusive one;‬
‭3.‬ ‭Such property during the pendency of such a suit or proceeding cannot be‬
‭transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to‬
‭affect the right of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be‬
‭passed therein except under the authority of Court. In other words,‬‭any transfer of‬
‭such property or any dealing with such property during the pendency of the suit is‬
‭prohibited except under the authority of the Court, if such transfer or otherwise‬
‭dealing with the property by any party to the suit or proceeding affects the right‬
‭of any other party to the suit or proceeding under any order or decree which may‬
‭be passed in the said suit or proceeding.‬

‭—‬

‭Emergence and Basis of Lis Pendens‬

‭ he doctrine of‬‭Lis Pendens‬‭has evolved through several‬‭significant cases and judicial‬

T
‭interpretations.‬

‭1.‬ ‭Definition:‬
‭○‬ ‭Rajendra Singh vs. Santa Singh (1973)‬‭: In this case,‬‭the doctrine was‬
‭defined as:‬
‭"Lis Pendens means a pending suit, and it represents the jurisdiction or‬
 ‭ ontrol which a court acquires over property involved in the suit during its‬
c
‭pendency, and until a final judgment is passed."‬
‭2.‬ ‭Judicial Reinforcement:‬
‭○‬ ‭The Supreme Court of India reaffirmed this reasoning in‬‭Jayaram Mudaliar‬
‭vs. Ayyaswami (1972)‬‭.‬
‭3.‬ ‭Two Theories Underpinning the Doctrine:‬
‭○‬ ‭Theory of Notice‬‭: This theory states that ongoing‬‭litigation serves as a‬
‭constructive notice to the world, warning potential buyers that the property‬
‭in question is under dispute. Therefore, third parties should avoid‬
‭purchasing it.‬
‭○‬ ‭Theory of Necessity‬‭: This theory argues that to ensure‬‭a fair and just‬
‭adjudication, it is necessary to prevent parties from alienating the property‬
‭while litigation is pending. Allowing such transfers could interfere with the‬
‭execution of the court's judgment.‬
‭4.‬ ‭Clarification in Bellamy vs. Sabine (1857):‬
‭○‬ ‭In this case, Lord Justice Turner explained that the‬‭basis of the doctrine‬‭is‬
‭not merely‬‭constructive notice‬‭, but the‬‭necessity‬‭to prevent disruption of‬
‭legal proceedings:‬
‭“If parties to a dispute aren't prevented from transferring the property, it‬
‭would be impossible for any action or suit to be successfully terminated.”‬
‭5.‬ ‭Faiyaz Husain Khan vs. Munshi Prag Narain (1907):‬
‭○‬ ‭The principle that the doctrine of‬‭Lis Pendens‬‭is‬‭based on‬‭necessity‬‭for‬
‭final adjudication was reinforced here, ensuring that no party could‬
‭interfere with the court’s eventual decree by alienating the property.‬

‭Public Policy and Necessity‬

‭The doctrine is deeply rooted in‬‭public policy‬‭, designed‬‭to:‬

‭●‬ P ‭ rotect the plaintiff’s rights‬‭: If alienation was‬‭allowed, defendants could‬

‭repeatedly transfer the property during litigation, making it impossible for the‬
‭plaintiff to secure a resolution.‬
‭●‬ ‭Prevent endless litigation‬‭: Without this doctrine,‬‭plaintiffs would have to keep‬
‭filing fresh suits against new purchasers, leading to an‬‭infinite loop‬‭of lawsuits.‬
‭This would undermine the principle of‬‭res judicata‬‭,‬‭which aims to avoid‬
‭re-litigation of the same issue.‬
I‭n this sense, Lis Pendens acts as an extension of‬‭res judicata‬‭, ensuring that the court’s‬
‭final decision is effective and enforceable without disruption.‬

‭ ttps://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-lis-pendens/#The_purpose_of_the_doctrine_of_Lis_Pe‬
h
‭ndens‬