LIS PENDENS:

1. During the pendency in any court having authority within the limits of India (except Jammu & Kashmir) or
established beyond such limits by the Central Government,
2. of any suit or proceeding—
(a) which is not collusive, and
(b) in which any right to immovable property is directly or specifically in question
3. the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding.
4. so as to affect the rights of any party to it under any decree or order which may be made therein,
5. the property can be transferred or dealt with only under the authority of the court on the terms imposed by it.
6. The pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed—
(a) to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or institution of proceeding in a court of
competent jurisdiction, and
(b) to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete
satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order—
(i) has been obtained, or
(ii) has become unobtainable by reason of the expiry of the period of limitation.

PRINCIPLE:
"Lis pendens" means a suit under consideration of any court of law. It is an action which is pending in any court.
This section is based on the maxim "ut lite pendente nihil innovetur," which means that nothing new should be
introduced into a pending litigation. Therefore, the property which is in dispute should not either be sold or
otherwise dealt with by any party to the dispute during the pendency of the suit or proceeding.

Where a suit or proceeding is pending between two persons with respect to an immovable property and one of
these parties sells or otherwise transfers the subject-matter of litigation, the transferee will be bound by the
result of the suit or proceeding, whether he had the notice of the suit or proceeding or not. This is known as the
rule of lis pendens. This rule affects the purchaser because the law does not allow litigants pending litigation to
give others any right to the property in dispute so as to prejudice the other party.
Lis pendens. —The principle underlying the object of section 52 is to maintain the status quo unaffected by the
act of any party to the litigations pending its determination. The principles contained in this section are in
accordance with the principle of equity, good conscience or justice because they rest upon an equitable and just
foundation, that it will be impossible to bring an action or suit to a successful termination if alienations are
permitted to avail. It would defeat the ends of justice.

SALIENT FEATURES:

 Principles Applied Even Without Direct Applicability:

Even if Section 52 itself isn’t directly applicable, the principles it contains—based on justice, equity, and good
conscience—are applied. This means that courts can invoke these principles in situations where the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 doesn’t explicitly apply, ensuring fairness in legal disputes over property transfers.

 Independence from Case Strength:

The applicability of Section 52 is not determined by the strength or weakness of any party’s case in bona fide
(genuine) proceedings i.e., merit or evidence does not influence whether the section applies.

 Good Faith Not Relevant under Doctrine of Lis Pendens:

When a property transfer is affected by the doctrine of lis pendens (as per Section 52), the good faith of the
transferee is irrelevant (as in Sections 41 and 51 of the Act, which allow certain protections for subsequent
purchasers who acted in good faith). However, for transfers subject to lis pendens, whether the purchaser acted
in good faith doesn’t matter, as the doctrine aims to protect the pending litigation’s outcome.

 Application in Execution Proceedings:

Even if there’s no ongoing litigation at the time of a decree, once an execution application is filed (to enforce the
decree), lis pendens applies again. This means that the property involved in the execution of the decree is still
considered in dispute, and any transfer of that property is restricted as per Section 52.
ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS:
The following conditions must be fulfilled for applicability of this section:—
(1) There must be a pending suit or proceeding.
(2) The suit or proceeding must be pending in a competent court.
(3) The suit or proceeding must not be collusive.
(4) A right to immovable property must be directly and specifically in question in that suit or proceeding.
(5) The disputed property must be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit.
(6) The alienation must affect the rights of any other party to the dispute.

1. There must be a pending suit or proceeding:

 Pending Suit or Proceeding: Section 52 applies when a property dispute is active in a competent court. This
includes suits, proceedings, and writs under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The case starts with the
plaint's presentation and continues until the final order is satisfied or becomes unenforceable due to time limits.

 Protection for Non-Transferor Party: The doctrine of lis pendens primarily protects the rights of the other
party in the case (not the transferor). Transfers during litigation aren’t illegal but bind the transferee to the
outcome. Compromise decrees and even ex parte rulings (one-sided, without full participation) fall under lis
pendens unless there’s fraud.

 Applies to Injunctions and Specific Claims: The doctrine affects properties involved in injunctions,
partnership disputes, and even maintenance cases where a charge is sought on a spouse’s property.
Unauthorized transfers in such cases are invalid without court approval.

 Transfers During Litigation: Unauthorized transfers or gifts of property during litigation are invalid. Buyers
during a pending suit cannot claim automatic rights to join the suit, and they remain bound by the court’s
eventual ruling.

 Continued Effect until Finality: Lis pendens continues until appeals are fully exhausted. Transfers made after
the original ruling but within the appeal period are still restricted. The doctrine also applies in Debt Recovery
Tribunal cases, blocking fraudulent attempts to transfer property mid-proceeding.

2. The suit or proceeding must be pending in competent court:

The second requirement is that the suit must be pending in a court of competent jurisdiction. Competent
jurisdiction means having a competency to try the suit. According to the civil Procedure Code, the suit regarding
immovable property must be filed in the court in whose jurisdiction the property is situated. If immovable
property is situated within the jurisdiction of more than one court, then the suit can be filed at any place where
part of the property is situated. This doctrine will be applicable to suits pending before a court in India or in a
court established beyond the limits of India by the Central Government.

3. Suit or proceeding must not be collusive:

Collusion in a judicial proceeding means that two people secretly work together, with one person filing a case
against the other, not because of a real dispute, but to get a court judgment that benefits them both for some
hidden reason. For the doctrine of Lis Pendens to apply, the lawsuit must be pursued in good faith, devoid of
collusion or malicious intent. If the lawsuit is found to be tainted by collusion or ill-intent, the doctrine will not
be applicable.

4. Right to property must be specifically in question:

The fourth requirement of the section is that right to immoveable property must be directly and specifically in
issue in the suit or proceeding. The subject matter of the suit must be clearly and pointedly in contest, the
property must have been property described by definite legal or general descriptions of its character, status, etc.,
so that it can be identified by description. A mere right to sue, not connected with the ownership of property is
not property, and therefore, this section will not be applicable to it.

5. The alienation must affect the rights of the other party:

The doctrine is not applicable where the rights of the transferor alone are affected and not of the other party to
the suit. The very object of this doctrine is to protect only the parties to the litigation against alienations by their
opponents pending the suit. It has been held that a transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree just as much
as he was a party to the suit. Such transferee puts himself in privity with the suit and must be treated not as a
stranger to the suit but as a party to it and consequently bound by the terms of the decree in full.

6. Disputed property must be transferred or otherwise dealt with:

The fifth requirement of the section is that the property must be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any to
parties of the litigation. The term "transferred" in this section includes leases, mortgages, sales and exchange.
The person who purchases property from any of the parties to the litigation will be bound by the result of the
suit or proceeding. The expression "otherwise dealt with" includes such action like raising of construction
wrongfully. Therefore, the operation of this doctrine cannot extend to person whose title is paramount to that of
the parties to the suit or whose title is not anyway connected with them.

7. Involuntary transfer:
A transfer under Sec. 52 need not be by act of parties, it could be an involuntary transfer also e.g. court-sales.
Therefore, a purchaser of a property at an execution sale during the pendency of a suit in respect of the same
property is affected by the doctrine.

8. Temporary Injunction against Transfer Pendente Lite:

A temporary injunction restraining a transfer pendente lite has been held not necessary to be granted in each
case. Section 52 provides adequate protection to parties against such transfers. The occasion for invoking
powers under O 39, rules 1 and 2 arises only in rare cases where the plaintiff demonstrates that the rule of lis
pendens is inadequate to protect his interest.

9. Exception to Lis Pendens:

According to section 52, when during the pendency of a suit a transfer is made with the permission of the court,
the principle of lis pendens is not applicable. The court may permit such a transfer subject to such terms as it
may impose. The transfer will be permissible only when the prescribed conditions will be fulfilled. The parties
to the suit may apply to the court to get the permission for transfer. If the court deems fit, it may give the
permission of such a transfer.

10. The doctrine of lis pendens also applies to suits for specific performance:

1. Transferee's Role: A purchaser who buys the property after a suit for specific performance is filed
does not need to be added as a party. This transferee has no independent claim to the property and will
be bound by the court's decision.
2. Subsequent Sale: If the property owner sells the same property again while a specific performance suit
is pending, the new buyer is still affected by lis pendens. Even if the buyer’s rights could otherwise be
protected under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, lis pendens restricts any new interests in the
property.
3. Not a Bona Fide Purchaser: If the new buyer knew about the case (as shown by being from the same
village), they can’t be considered a genuine buyer without prior knowledge, and the original plaintiff
can enforce specific performance against them.
4. Not Applicable in Execution Proceedings: Once a decree for specific performance is passed, the
court maintains authority over it, but lis pendens does not apply to the execution phase. If the property
is sold after the suit concludes (when no appeal is filed), the buyer isn’t affected by the doctrine and
doesn’t need to be added to the execution proceedings.

11. Lis Pendens between Co-defendants:

The doctrine of lis pendens does not apply to co-defendants. Co-defendants have no issue between them for
decision and that is why lis pendens does not apply to them. If the relief claimed involves a decision between
them, the position would be different..
Effect of the Doctrine:
A transfer or dealing by a party to a suit during the pendency of the suit/ proceeding is not ipso facto void. 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 (Prabhakar v Antonio AIR 1971 Goa 42).
Sec. 52 creates only a right to be enforced to avoid a transfer made pendente lite, because such transfers are not
void but voidable and that too at the option of the affected party to the proceeding, pending which the transfer is
effected. Thus, the effect of the rule of lis pendens is not to invalidate or void the transfer, but to make it subject
to the result of the litigation. The following illustrations may clear the point :

A sues B in respect of a house in B’s possession. During die pendency of the suit B sells the house to C. A’s suit
is dismissed. The transfer to C holds good. Thus, here, the purchaser (C) is bound by the result of the litigation.

A sues B in respect of a house in B’s possession. During the pendency of the suit B sells it to C. A’s suit is
decreed. The transfer to C is voidable and A’s tight to take the house is not affected.

CASE LAWS:

In Govindapillai v Alyyappan Krishnan,369 it was held the foundation for the doctrine of lis pendens does not
vest upon notice, actual or constructive, it rests solely upon the necessity—the necessity that neither party to
litigation should alienate the property in dispute so as to affect his opponents.

Dalip Kaur v Jeewan Ram : The Supreme Court emphasised its pivotal role in the judicial system and its
jurisdiction to grant special leave under Article 136. It ruled that the proceedings before it are indeed a
continuation of the original suit, and the principle of lis pendens and restitution applies.

 Bellamy v. Sabine (1857):

o This doctrine was originated in this case where Justice Turner observed that “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 any case, the plaintiff will be responsible for the defendant who alienated the property
before the judgment or the decree and must be obliged, according to the same course of action, to
initiate these proceedings de novo”.

Some examples for Non-Applicability:

This does not apply to a private sale by a creditor who holds the right to dispose of the property that is
mortgaged to it even when the borrower has a redemption suit pending.

The Doctrine also does not apply when the property is not described correctly, making it unidentifiable.

In a maintenance suit, where the property is mentioned only so that maintenance payments can be determined
transparently; the Doctrine does not apply when a right to the said immovable property is not directly in
question and alienations are thereby permitted.

The Doctrine fails to apply when a Court orders restoration of immovable property under the Civil Procedure
Code, Order 21, Rule 63.