CHANAKYA PATNA

NATIONAL

LAW

UNIVERSITY,

PROPERTY PENDENS

LAW-

DOCTRINE

OF

LIS

Submitted to: SHARMA

Dr. B. RAVI NARAYAN

Submitted by: second year

PAWAN KUMAR Roll No.-343 3rd semester,

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. B.R.N. SHARMA for his invaluable support, guidance and advice. I would also like to thank my friends who have always been there to support me and last but not the least I would also like to thank the library staff for working long hours to facilitate us with required material going a long way in quenching our thirst for education.

---- PAWAN KUMAR

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Aims and Objectives:
The aim of the project is to present a detailed study of DOCTRINE OF LIS PENDENS through decisions, statutes, amendments, suggestions and different writings and articles.

Scope and Limitations:

Though this is an immense project and pages can be written over the topic but because of certain restrictions and limitations I was not able to deal with the topic in great detail.

Sources of Data:
The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project1. Articles 2. Books 3. Websites

Method of Writing:
The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily analytical.

Mode of Citation:
3

The researcher has followed a uniform mode of citation throughout the course of this research paper.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RESEARCH METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION
LIS PENDENS HISTORY OF LIS PENDENS BASIS OF LIS PENDENS STATE AMENDMENT IN GUJRAT AND MAHARASTRA PROVISIONS OS PROPERTY ACT SECTION 52 OF TRANSFER OF

ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR SEC 52. PENDENCY OF SUIT OR PROCEEDING PROCEEDING COMPROMISE SUIT PENDENCY IN JURISDICTION COURT OF COMPETENT

 RIGHT TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY MUST BE INVOLVED RIGHT IN MOVABLES SUIT MUST NOT BE COLLUSIVE PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED OR OTHERWISE DEALT WITH INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER TRANSFER WITH PERMISSION OF COURT TRANSFER BY ANY PARTY TO SUIT TRANSFER AFFECTS THE RIGHTS OF ANY PARTY EFFECTS OF PRINCIPLES OF LIS PENDENS CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION
LIS PENDENS
Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act deals with the Doctrine of Lis Pendens.

Lis means litigation and Pendens means pending. So, Lis Pendens would mean pending litigation. The doctrine of Lis Pendens is expressed in the well known maxim:Pendente lite nihil innovature, which means during pendency of litigation, nothing new should be introduced. Under this doctrine, it is provided that during pendency of any suit regarding title of a property, any new interest in respect of that property should not be created. Creation of new title or interest is known as a transfer of property. Therefore, in essence, the doctrine of Lis Pendens prohibits the transfer of property pending litigation. It is a very old doctrine and has been operating in the English Common Law. Under this doctrine the judgements in the immovable properties were regarded as overriding any alienation made by the parties during pendency of litigation. Later on, this doctrine was adopted also by equity for a better and more regular administration of justice. In current practice, a lis pendens is a written notice that a lawsuit has been filed concerning real estate, involving either the title to the property or a claimed ownership interest in it. The notice is usually filed in the county land records office. Recording a lis pendens against a piece of property alerts a potential purchaser or lender that the propertys title is in question, which makes the property less attractive to a buyer or lender. After the notice is filed, anyone who nevertheless purchases the land or property described in the notice takes subject to the ultimate decision of the lawsuit. A foreclosure will wipe out a lis pendens. If the lis pendens does not end in a foreclosure at auction, then it will stay a lis pendens where the subsequent buyer will have constructive notice.

HISTORY OF LIS PENDENS

Under the common law, the mere existence of a lawsuit potentially affecting the title to real property had the legal effect of putting the entire world on constructive notice of

the suit; anyone acquiring an interest in real property which was the subject of a pending suit took that interest subject to the litigants rights as they might be eventually determined, no matter how much later. In effect, nothing relating to the ownership of the subject matter of the suit could be definitively changed while the suit was pending. Innocent buyers might discover the existence of a lawsuit too late. The harsh effect of this rule, and especially its effect on innocent purchasers (particularly vis--vis not-so-innocent sellers), led many jurisdictions to enact lis pendens statutes requiring a written notice, usually recorded in the land records where the real estate is located, for the notice provisions of the rule to be effective. Typically, a separate recorded instrument is required by statute if the lawsuit in question affects title to real property. If the statutory requirements are met, the world is put on "constructive notice" of the existence of the suit, and any person acquiring an interest later does so subject to the outcome of the suit. Some states lis pendens statutes require the filer of the notice, in the event of a challenge to the notice, to establish that it has probable cause or a good likelihood of success on the merits of its case in the underlying lawsuit; other statutes do not have such a requirement. lis pendens applies in matters of parental responsibility as well.

BASIS OF LIS PENDENS The basis of Lis Pendens is necessary rather than actual or constructive notice it may be said that this doctrine is based on notice because a pending suit is regarded as constructive notice of the fact of disputed title of the property under litigation. Therefore, any person dealing with that property, pending litigation, must be bound by the decision of the Court. But, the correct view is that lis pendens is founded on necessity. For administration of justice it is necessary that while any suit is still

pending in a Court of Law regarding title of a property, the litigants should not be allowed to take decision themselves and transfer the disputed property. Lis Pendens is, therefore, based on necessity and as a matter of public policy it prevents the parties from disposing of a disputed property in such manner as to interfere with Courts proceedings. When a litigation is already pending the necessities of judicial functioning would require that the decision of the Court should be honoured and be made binding not only on the parties but also on all such persons who derive title under them by alienation made by any one of them pending litigation. Without any rule prohibiting transfer pending litigation, all suits regarding specific property would be rendered meaningless by successive alienations making it almost impracticable for any person to settle his rights in property through the process of law. Explaining the basis of this doctrine in Bellamy v. Sabine1, Turner L.J. observed: It is, as I think, a doctrine common to the Courts both of law and equity and rests as I apprehend, on the foundation that it would plainly be impossible that any action or suit could be brought to a successful termination, if alienations pendente lite were permitted to prevail. The plaintiff would be liable in every case to be defeated by the defendants alienating before the judgement or decree, and would be driven to commence his proceedings de novo, subject again to be defeated by the same course of proceedings. The Indian Courts have also taken the view that basis of Section 52 is not the doctrine of notice but expediency i.e. the necessity for final adjudication and public policy. It has been held that the foundation for the doctrine of lis pendens does not rest upon notice, actual or constructive; it rests solely upon necessity- the necessity that neither party to the litigation should alienate the property in dispute so as to effect his opponents. In Rajendar Singh v. Santa Singh2 the Supreme Court has said that the doctrine of lis pendens is intended to strike at attempts by parties to a suit to curtail the jurisdiction of the Court by private dealings which may remove the subject matter of
1 2

(1857) 1 De G & J 566. AIR (1973) SC 2537.

litigation from the power of the Court to decide a pending dispute and frustrate its decree. Since the Courts in India regard necessary as the basis of the doctrine of lis pendens, it is immaterial whether the transferee had any notice of pendency of suit or not. The transferee is bound by the decision of the Court even if he had no actual or constructive notice of the pending suit. In Bellamys case given above, Lord Cranworth said:It is scarcely correct to speak of lis pendens as affecting a purchaser through the doctrine of notice, though undoubtedly the language of the Courts often so describes its operation. 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, so as to prejudice the opposite party.

State Amendment in Gujarat and Maharashtra -:

Section 52 of the

Transfer of Property Act was amended by the Bombay Act, 1939. this amendment was subsequently declared to be in force in whole of the present states of Gujarat and Maharashtra in the year 1959. The amended version of Section 52 provides that this section is applicable only to those transactions pending litigation which are duly registered. However, section 52 of the Bombay Act, 1939 provides that the amendment in section 52 is applicable only to immovable properties situated wholly or partly in Greater Bombay but the state Government is empowered to extend its application to other areas by notification.

PROVISIONS OF SECTION 52 OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT-1882 The doctrine of lis pendens as laid down in Section 52 is given below: During the pendency of a suit or proceeding. Property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with, and

if so transferred, the transferee is bound by the decision of the Court whether or not he had notice of the suit or proceeding.

ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR APPLICATION OF SECTION 52 Following conditions are necessary for the application of the doctrine of lis pendens as given in section 52: There is a pendency of a suit or proceeding. The suit or proceeding must be pending in a Court of competent jurisdiction. A right to immovable property is directly and specifically involved in the suit. The suit or proceeding must not be collusive. The property in dispute must be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to suit. The transfer must affect the rights of the other party to litigation.

When the above- mentioned conditions are fulfilled, the transferee is bound by the decision of the Court. If the decision of the Court is in favour of the transferor, the transferee has rights in the property transferred to him. If the decision goes against the transferor, the transferee cannot get any interest in the property.

PENDENCY OF SUIT OR PROCEEDING

10

The section applies only where a property is transferred during pendency of litigation. Pendency of a suit is that period during which the case remains before a Court of Law for its final disposal. If a case is instituted in Court, the first step is presentation of the plaint, and the last step is passing of a decree. When the Court gives its decision by passing a decree, the case is terminated. So, the pendency of a suit begins from the date on which the plaint is presented and terminates on the date when final decree is passed. The explanation to this section provides that the pendency of suit or proceeding is deemed to begin from the date of presentation of the plaint or or institution of the proceeding in a Court and continues untill the suit has been disposed of by a final decree or order. However, mere presentation of plaint is not sufficient; the plaint must also be accepted by the Court. Where a plaint is presented in a Court having no jurisdiction and the plaint is returned to be filed in the Court having proper jurisdiction, the pendency would commence from the date on which the plaint is presented to another Court having proper jurisdiction. Transfer made during the interval between the first presentation of plaint (which was returned back) and the date of presentation thereof in a proper Court, is not affected by the doctrine of lis pendens. Similarly, where a plaint is presented with insufficient Court fee and is therefore returned by the Court by the plaintiff presents it again by affixing proper Court fee, the pendency would begin from the date when it was presented second time with proper Court fee. Where an application is presented before a Court asking permission to sue in forma pauperis, the pendency starts from the date on which the application has been presented provided it is accepted by the Court. But, where such application is rejected, the pendency shall not commence from the date of application. As regards termination of the suit or proceeding, the Explanation provides that pendency continues until the final decree or order in the suit or proceeding is completely satisfied or discharged unless execution of the decree has become timebarred. Execution proceedings are in fact part of the proceedings in a suit. Therefore, the pendency continues till the decree is completely execute.

11

In N.C Bhartia v. Gandevi peoples Co- operative Bank Ltd.3 an order of attachment of judgement- debtors property was passed during execution proceedings. Subsequently, the relatives of the judgement- debtor objected the attachment and claimed a share in that property. They also sold that property and this sale deed was executed during pendency of the execution proceedings. Gujarat High Court held that the sale deed was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens as given in section 52. Lis (litigation) in a mortgage suit continues after the decree and does not terminate till the security is realised for the satisfaction of the decree. After a final decree, the defendant has a right to appeal within the period of limitation. Where an appeal is preferred within limitation period, the appeal would be a continuation of the suit and the lis shall be deemed to continue during appeal. Transfer of property made during appeal shall be a transfer during pendency of suit and the provisions of section 52 shall apply on it. It may be concluded that for purposes of this section pendency of a suit begins from the date of presentation of a plaint and continues up to the termination of litigation including appellate stage and execution proceedings. This section must be interpreted srictly. Any transfer made outside the period of litigation will not be affected by lis pendens. A sale-deed executed before but registered after presentation of the plaint is not affected by this section because deed operates from the date of its execution. But where the sale-deed is already registered the saledeed would be affected by the doctrine of lis pendens. Proceedings -: The doctrine of lis pendens applies to transfers during pendency of suit or proceeding. Proceeding means a judicial activity whether civil or criminal. Here it means a judicial activity in respect of determining the rights in an immovable property. Accordingly, for purposes of this section, there is no difference between a suit and a proceeding. This section has been applied to transfers made during revenue proceedings. A claim made under O.XXI, R. 58 of the Civil Procedure Code is a proceeding under this section. Similarly, proceedings for ejectment before Revenue Officer are affected by lis pendens. Since Registrar of Co-operative Societies is
3

AIR 2002 Guj. 209.

12

regarded as a Court, therefore, proceeding under Rule 14 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 operates as lis pendens. But, proceeding before Settlement Officer is not a proceeding under this section and such proceeding cannot operates as lis pendens. Compromise Suit -: The doctrine of lis pendens is applicable in cases where the pending litigation is ultimately compromised and a compromise or consent decree is passed. The word decree or order in this section contemplates compromise or consent decrees. However, the compromise must be during the pendency of suit and not a compromise entered into after withdrawal of the suit. PENDENCY IN COURT OF COMPENENT JURISDICTION The suit or proceeding during which the property is transferred, must be pending before a Court of competent jurisdiction. Where a suit is pending before a Court which has no proper jurisdiction to entertain it, the lis pendens cannot apply. For filing a suit, the Civil Procedure Code has prescribed jurisdictions of the Courts on the ground of territory or on the basis of valuation of the subject-matter of dispute. The jurisdiction of the Court is, therefore, territorial or pecuniary or, otherwise as given in this code. Thus, a suit respecting any immovable property should be filed only in the Court within whose jurisdiction the property situates. If the disputed property is situated outside the territorial limits of the Court, it has no competency to try any any suit involving that property. Accordingly, the Court cannot pass a valid decree so as to affect a transfer made pendente lite. Lis pendens is not applicable where the suit is pending in any Court is outside the scope of this section. However, as regards pecuniary jurisdiction, if a suit is filed in a higher Court which should have been filed in the lowest Court, it has been held that there is no lack of jurisdiction; it is merely a irregularity and section 52 applies.

13

RIGHT TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY MUST BE INVOLVED Another condition for applicability of this section is that in the pending suit, right to immovable property must directly and specifically be in question. The litigation should be regarding title or interest in an immovable property. Where the question involved in the suit or proceeding does not relate directly to any interest in an immovable property, the doctrine of lis pendens has no application. For example, where a suit is pending between landlord and tenant regarding payment of rents and during litigation the landlord transfers the property, the transfer is not affected by lis pendens because the litigation is not with regard to any interest in the property but involves payment of rents. Similarly, where a Hindu widow filed a suit against her stepson for maintenance and specifies certain immovable properties in possession of such stepson, it was held that right to immovable property is not directly in issue and this section cannot apply. Mere mention of an immovable property in the plaint is not enough, rights in respect of that immovable property must directly and substantially be in question. In a suit for specific performance of a contract to transfer an immovable property is directly and substantially in question. Therefore, transfer of that property is within the scope of this section. The test whether a suit or proceeding involves any question of right in immovable property should be the nature of claim and the decree passed rather than the property mentioned in the plaint. However, following suits have been held to involve question of rights in immovable property and are within the scope of this section: A suit for partition. A suit on mortgage. A suit for pre-emption. Easement suit.

14

Suit for maintenance by a Hindu widow in which she claims to have her maintenance made a charge on specific immovable property and a decree is passed creating a charge on such property.

Where the suit or proceeding does not involve any question of right in immovable property, lis pendens does not apply. Thus, these are the suits where lis pendens does not apply: Suit for debt or damages where the claim is limited to money. A suit for the recovery of movables. A suit for an account.

Similarly, a suit for recovery of rents of an agricultural holding is also outside the scope of this section. Rights in movables -: The doctrine of lis pendens does not apply where the suit involves rights in movable properties. Standing timber is a movable property, therefore, this section cannot apply where the issue before the Court is rights in respect of standing timber. Similarly, where certain ornaments were pledged pending a suit for their recovery, it was held that lis pendens is not applicable and the pledge shall not be subject to decision of the Court. SUIT MUST NOT BE COLLUSIVE Lis pendens is inapplicable if the suit is collusive in nature. A suit is collusive if it is instituted with a mala fide intention. Mala fide intention behind instituting a suit is inferred from the fact that parties to the suit know their respective rights in the property and there is no actual dispute. Such suit is, therefore, fictitious and the very purpose of filing the suit is to get judicial decision for some evil design e.g. defrauding a third party. Since such suits are instituted with a mala fide intention of causing injury to a third person, there is no question of its being a litigation involving rights in an

15

immovable property. Where property is transferred during pendency of a collusive suit, the transferee is not bound by the result of the litigation. However, it is impossible that a suit in the beginning is bona fide but during pendency there is a secret agreement between the parties in the form of a compromise. In such cases too lis pendens is inapplicable. A Hindu wife filed a maintenance suit against her husband with a secret agreement that during litigation the husband would transfer the property. During the pendency of the suit, the husband sold the property. Later on, a charge was created in favour of the wife over the property. It was held by the Privy Council that the suit was collusive in nature and was, therefore, outside the scope of lis pendens. Accordingly, the Court held that the purchaser was not bound by the charge on the property. PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED OR OTHERWISE DEALT WITH During pendency of suit, the property must be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any of the parties to suit. Transfer includes sale, exchange, lease and mortgage. Thus, during pendency of suit if the disputed property is sold or given in exchange, is leased or is mortgaged either by plaintiff or by defendant, the doctrine of lis pendens shall apply on it and the transfer would be subject to decision of the Court. The expression otherwise dealt with has been interpreted to mean those transactions in which although there is transfer of some interest in the property but they do not come strictly within the meaning of transfer of property as defined in Section 5 of this Act. Accordingly, surrender, release or partition would be regarded as transfer for purposes of this section. A contract of sale has been regarded as a transfer within the meaning of otherwise dealt with. Therefore, entering into contract of sale of the disputed property during litigation shall attract the provisions of this section. Partition effected during pendency of the suit shall also come within the ambit of this section. Handing over of the disputed property during litigation would mean otherwise dealt with and section 52 applies.

16

To construct building on the disputed land so as to compel the plaintiff to file another suit for its removal is dealing the property otherwise and comes within the purview of Section 52. Entering into a compromise respecting disputed property with a third person during litigation is also dealing the property otherwise.

Involuntary Transfers -: Transfer of property may either be by act of parties or by operation of law. Transfers by operation of law are known as involuntary transfers e.g. Court sale or transfer made by order of Court. Section 52 is applicable to both the kinds of transfers pendente lite. Formerly there was some doubt whether this section applies to transfers made by operation of law because this Act does not apply to such transfers. But the Privy Council had settled the law that the principle of lis pendens is applicable also to transfers by operation of law. The doctrine of lis pendens applies where the sale is made by order of the Court. Though an attachment is not a transfer, but a sale in pursuance of an attachment comes within the scope of this section. The principle of lis pendens applies to execution sales as well as sales for non- payment of Government Revenue. The auction-purchaser is bound by the decision of the pending litigation though auction is made by Courts order. Purchaser at a sale for arrears of income-tax is affected by the rule of lis pendens and would be bound by the decision of Court if he had purchased the property pending litigation. Lease effected by Government in khas mahal is regarded as lease by the landlord and if made pendente lite, Section 52 is applicable on such a lease. In Sujan Bhan v. Guj Rai4 a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of an immovable property was pending in a Court. The property was purchased under an auction sale in execution of decree in suit filed on the basis of a promissory note. The Allahabad High Court held that the execution sale would be hit by the provisions of Section 52 and no title could be given to the purchaser. Transfers with permission of the Court -: When a transfer is made during pendency of suit with the permission of Court, the principle of lis pendens is not applicable. The concluding part of this Section exempts transfers pendente lite if such transfer is made
4

AIR (1981) ALL. 149.

17

under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it any impose. Under this clause the parties to suit are entitled to apply to the Court in which the suit is pending to get permission for the transfer. If the Court deems it fit, it may give permission for the transfer of disputed property. In such a situation, Section 52 shall not apply on the transfer of disputed property. In such a situation, section 52 shall not apply on the transfer though it is made during pendency of suit. TRANSFER BY ANY PARTY TO SUIT Transfer made during pendency of suit is not enough to attract the provisions of this section. It is necessary that transfer of disputed property is made by any party to suit. Transfer of property by a person whose title is not in any way connected with disputed property is not affected by lis pendens. A party to suit whose name is struck off as a contesting party by consent is not bound by the decree because lis pendens shall not apply to him. It is to be noted that the words any party are not merely descriptive but refer to the time when the transaction takes place. The doctrine of lis pendens was, therefore, not applied where the transfer was made pending the suit by a person who was not party at the time of transfer but, was subsequently made a party as a representative of the original defendant. TRANSFER AFFECTS THE RIGHTS OF ANY OTHER PARTY The last condition for applicability of Section 52 is that the transfer during pendency must affect the rights of any other party to suit. The principle of lis pendens is intended to safeguard the parties to litigation against transfers by their opponents. So, the words any other party here does not mean stranger to suit. It means any other party between whom and the party who transfers, there is an issue for decision which might be prejudiced by alienation. Any other party here means the opposite party whose interest may be affected by transfer pendente lite. Where the rights only of the transferor and not of the other party to suit are affected, the principle of lis pendens does not apply. Thus, Section 52 cannot be made applicable between parties who are at

18

one side either as plaintiff or as defendant because there is no question of any dispute between them. For example, in a suit A is plaintiff and B, and C are co-defendants. During pendency of the suit B transfers the property. C cannot take the benefit of Section 52 because there is no dispute between B and C. but A can take the benefit of this section because he is party to suit other than the transferor and his rights may be affected by the transfer pendente lite.

EFFECT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF LIS PENDENS Lis pendens is taken as constructive notice of the pending lawsuit, and it serves to place a cloud on the title of the property in question until the suit is resolved and the notice released or the lis pendens is expunged. Reputable, careful lenders will not lend money on the security of land which is subject to a lis pendens, as title insurance companies will not insure the title to such land: title is taken subject to the outcome of the lawsuit. Because so much real property is purchased with borrowed money, this largely keeps the owner from selling the property. It also may keep the owner from borrowing money secured by the property (such as to pay the costs of defending the suit). Similarly, careful buyers will be unwilling to purchase the land, at least not at what the full value would be without the cloud on title. It is important to note that the presence of a lis pendens does not prevent or necessarily invalidate a transfer of the property, although it makes such a transfer subject to the outcome of the litigation. As such, it tends to scare off diligent, reputable lenders and careful buyers. Thus, the owner is not prevented from selling the land for (nonborrowed) cash, pledging it as security for a speculative loan, or giving it away subject to the outcome of the lawsuit. However, once the lis pendens is recorded, the recipient (a "purchaser" or "grantee pendente lite") would be deemed to have notice of

19

the litigation, and thus would not be a bona fide purchaser, and the title might be regained. While it is generally thought of in connection with real property (land, buildings, and the like), the doctrine of lis pendens also applies to personal property. Frequently, lis pendens statutes only apply to real property, so the common-law doctrine probably still applies to personal property. When the condition necessary for the applicability of this section are fulfilled the result is that transferee is bound by the decision of the Court. For e.g. in a suit between A and B respecting title of a house if B transfers the house to C during pendency and the judgement is subsequently in favour of B., then C would be entitled to the house. But if the decree is passed against B, then it is binding not only on B but also on C with the result that C cannot get the house. Under this section C cannot take the plea that he had no notice of pending litigation. It may be noted that normally decree of a Court binds only the parties to the suit. But, under the principle of lis pendens, a person who purchases during pendency of the suit is also bound by the decree made against that party from whom he had purchased. The effect of lis pendens is, therefore, that it does not prevent the vesting of title in the transferee but only makes it subject to the rights of the parties as decided in the suit. Section 52, therefore, does not invalidate the transfer but renders if subservient or subject to the rights of the parties to litigation. The words so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein suggest that the transfer pendente lite is valid and good to the extent that it might conflict with rights established under the decree.

20

CONCLUSION
A pending suit involving title conveys notice to intending purchasers, and charges the land, in whosesoever hands it may be, with the consequences of whatever decree may be made. This is known technically, as lis pendens. The doctrine of lis pendens is, that a purchase of property actually in litigation, or, as the technical phrase runs, a purchase pendente lite, although for a valuable consideration and without any actual notice, affects the purchaser in the same manner as if he had such notice, and he will accordingly be bound by the judgment or decree rendered in the suit. The doctrine of lis pendens applies only where a third person attempts to intrude into a controversy by acquiring an interest in the subject-matter of the litigation. The reason of the rule is, that if a transfer of interest pending suit were to be allowed to affect the proceedings, there would be no end to litigation; for as soon as a new party was brought in he might transfer to another, and render it necessary to bring that other before the Court, so that a suit might be interminable.

21

It will be understood, however, that the rule, that a party purchasing pendente lite is to be regarded as a purchaser with notice, subject to all the equities of the person under whom he claims, and bound by the decree that may be rendered against the person from whom he derives title, applies only to cases in which such purchaser derives title from one of the parties litigant. If he claims adversely to both parties by-title paramount, the proceedings to which he is neither party nor privy can not bind him. The common law rule requiring purchasers, at their peril, to take notice of the pendency of suits in courts of justice for the recovery of the lands they are about to purchase, although it is really impossible that they should actually know that such suits have been commenced, has always been considered a hard rule, and is by no means a favorite with the courts. In fact, it has only been tolerated from a supposed necessity. Usually the filing of a bill of complaint is itself a sufficient notice to the world, so as to defeat the transfer of property by the defendant made subsequent to the filing;44 but in a large number of states, particularly where the provisions of the New York Code have been followed, a material change has been made this rigorous rule. In these states the statute provides that the pendency of a suit shall not be notice to a stranger until a formal notice thereof has been filed in the office of the recorder of deeds of the county where the land is situated, and that as to one having no actual notice, he may, in good faith, and for a valuable consideration, acquire a valid title until such notice is filed. Where the suit is still pending the notice may be shown as an appendix. If the proceedings are shown, as they should be after the bill has been filed, its orderly arrangement would be to precede the synopsis of the court proceedings. Where no notice is required the bill itself furnishes notice as above explained. The practical purpose of a notice of pendency of suit is to restrain strangers from acquiring interests in the subject-matter of the litigation during the progress of the suit.

22

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS REFERRED :1. Prof. R.K. SINHA, THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 10 TH EDITION, 2008. 2. Dr. S.N. SHUKLA, THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 26 TH EDITION, 2006. 3. VEPA P. SARATHI, LAW OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY, 5 TH EDITION, 2005. 4. Dr. AVTAR SINGH, THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 2008. 5. H.N. TIWARI, TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 4TH EDITION, 2005.

23

WEBSITES :-

Google.co.in Wikipedia.org Legalservicesindia.com Indiankanoon.org

24