Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Lis Pendens Not Applicable to Money Suits - The doctrine of lis pendens is generally not applicable to suits solely for recovery of money, especially when no immovable property is directly involved. Courts have held that lis pendens applies primarily to disputes concerning immovable property and the rights related to it, not to purely monetary claims. For example, ["Gunaseelan vs P.Perumal - Madras"] states: Anand Kr reported in 2007 97 DRJ 189 have held that lis pendens does not apply to a suit for recovery of money. Similarly, ["HALADHAR MAJHI VS BALARAM MAJHI - Orissa"] notes that since the transfer does not relate to immovable property directly, lis pendens is not applicable: the said principle will be of no application, since the transfer in question does not relate to any immovable property directly.
Application of Lis Pendens Depends on Nature of Suit - Courts have clarified that lis pendens applies when the suit involves the enforcement of rights over immovable property, including in cases of specific performance, injunctions, or partition under Section 4 of the Partition Act. For instance, ["HALADHAR MAJHI VS BALARAM MAJHI - Orissa"] mentions: since the suit claims relief u/s 4 of the Partition Act, the principle of lis pendens would be applicable. Conversely, in money suits, especially those for recovery or enforcement of contracts not involving property, lis pendens is generally not invoked.
Effect of Sale During Pendency of Money Suit - When a property is sold during the pendency of a money suit, courts have held that such transfer can be attacked under the Transfer of Property Act as a fraud on the creditor, but the doctrine of lis pendens does not automatically apply. ["Gunaseelan vs P.Perumal - Madras"] states: transfer of any property during the suit for money decree, such transfer can be attacked under Section 53 of Transfer of Property Act as a fraud on creditor. Whereas, doctrine of lis pendens will not apply.
Legal Principles and Court Rulings - The legal consensus indicates that lis pendens is primarily a doctrine applicable to immovable property and does not extend to purely monetary suits. Courts consider the nature of the suit, whether property is directly involved, and whether the transfer relates to immovable property. ["B. J. PATEL VS Vadilal Dolatram & Sons and others - Bombay"] emphasizes: the principles applicable to granting of relief from lis pendens are not available in any reported case nor are they given in the section, and that the doctrine is based on justice, equity, and good conscience, not on monetary claims.
Analysis and Conclusion:The collected case law and legal principles clearly establish that lis pendens is not applicable to suits solely for recovery of money or monetary reliefs unless the suit directly involves immovable property. The doctrine's primary purpose is to prevent alienation or transfer of property during litigation concerning that property, not to restrict transactions in purely monetary claims. Therefore, in money suits, lis pendens generally does not apply, though transfers during such suits can be challenged under other provisions like Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.
In property disputes, few doctrines spark as much debate as lis pendens. A common misconception is that lis pendens is not applicable for money suits. But is this true? This blog dives deep into Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA), examining whether transfers during pending money suits are shielded or subject to litigation outcomes. Drawing from key judgments and legal principles, we'll clarify this for property buyers, litigants, and legal professionals.
The doctrine of lis pendens—Latin for pending litigation—prevents parties from alienating immovable property in a way that defeats the suit's purpose. Under Section 52 TPA, during the pendency of a non-collusive suit or proceeding where any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, transfers are not void but subject to the final decreeCelir LLP VS Sumati Prasad Bafna - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1187.
This principle rests on public policy: to ensure the finality of court decrees and prevent parties from defeating the purpose of litigation through alienation of property Celir LLP VS Sumati Prasad Bafna - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1187. Importantly, it applies regardless of notice to transferees; even bona fide purchasers are bound Krishnaji Pandharinath VS Anusayabai and another - 1958 Supreme(Bom) 46. As noted, the application of the doctrine of lis pendens does not depend upon the purchaser having notice of the suit Krishnaji Pandharinath VS Anusayabai and another - 1958 Supreme(Bom) 46.
The core question: Is lis pendens limited to suits for specific performance, or does it extend to money suits?
Courts have consistently held that it does apply to money suits if they directly and specifically involve rights to immovable property. Section 52 TPA's language is broad: it covers any suit in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, not just specific performance Celir LLP VS Sumati Prasad Bafna - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1187.
In practice, if a money suit claims a lien or recovery from specific immovable property, alienations pendente lite bind transferees to the outcome Chander Bhan (D) Through Lr Sher Singh VS Mukhtiar Singh - 2024 4 Supreme 188.
Landmark rulings affirm broad application:
These holdings debunk the myth that money suits are exempt.
Other precedents provide nuance:
However, not all money suits trigger it. Pure money claims without specific property rights may not: The suit is only a money suit and some other properties were already attached... Doctrine of lis pendens is not applicable to this transaction Josephin Sironmani VS B. Veerammal - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 2664Josephin Sironmani VS B. Veerammal - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 3423. Here, courts distinguished cases lacking direct property claims.
In auction or execution contexts, prior transfers escape lis pendens: C was prior to the institution of the suit, hence, the principle of lis pendens is not applicable Jonha Devi, Wife of Late Janki Rai VS Dinesh Singh, S/o Late Jamadar Rai - 2019 Supreme(Pat) 1693Jonha Devi VS Dinesh Singh.
While powerful, lis pendens has bounds:
Courts stress: transfers are not automatically void but subordinate to the final decree Celir LLP VS Sumati Prasad Bafna - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1187.
In disputes, invoke Order XXI CPC for execution resistance, but expect lis pendens scrutiny Manik S/o Motiram Dalwale Died Through VS Suhas Vasantrao Jawadekar, Occ. Service, Bombay - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 1512.
Contrary to the notion that lis pendens is not applicable for money suits, it typically applies when immovable property rights are directly involved Celir LLP VS Sumati Prasad Bafna - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1187Chander Bhan (D) Through Lr Sher Singh VS Mukhtiar Singh - 2024 4 Supreme 188. This upholds justice, equity, and litigation integrity.
Key Takeaways:- Lis pendens binds transfers during qualifying suits, including money claims on property.- Always check pendency; ignorance isn't a defense Krishnaji Pandharinath VS Anusayabai and another - 1958 Supreme(Bom) 46.- Exceptions exist for non-property-specific suits or pre-suit transfers.
This post provides general insights based on precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
References:- Celir LLP VS Sumati Prasad Bafna - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1187, Chander Bhan (D) Through Lr Sher Singh VS Mukhtiar Singh - 2024 4 Supreme 188, Madhukar Nivrutti Jagtap VS Pramilabai Chandulal Parandekar - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 850, Krishnaji Pandharinath VS Anusayabai and another - 1958 Supreme(Bom) 46, PERIANAN CHETTY v. FERNANDO, Shingara Singh VS Daljit Singh - 2024 7 Supreme 688, Manik S/o Motiram Dalwale Died Through VS Suhas Vasantrao Jawadekar, Occ. Service, Bombay - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 1512, Josephin Sironmani VS B. Veerammal - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 2664, Josephin Sironmani VS B. Veerammal - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 3423, Jonha Devi, Wife of Late Janki Rai VS Dinesh Singh, S/o Late Jamadar Rai - 2019 Supreme(Pat) 1693, Amad Noormamad Madakia VS Ghanchi Ismail Hasan Madakia.
#LisPendens, #PropertyLawIndia, #IndianLegalInsights
In other words, according to the lower appellate Court since specific property is not in issue, but an undivided share in the joint family, the principle of Iis pendens will not be applicable. ... This in turn makes it obligatory to decide whether the principle o1 lis pendens would be applicable in respept of the rights of the parties u/s 4 of the Partition Act. ... Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held : ... "It is settled raw in Punjab that the....
Anand Kr reported in 2007 97 DRJ 189 have held that lis pendens does not apply to a suit for recovery of money. 27. ... Murugan reported in AIR 2022 Mad 63, wherein, this Court has held that doctrine of lis pendens will apply to the money suit also. ... Since the suit is related to the enforcement of the contract in respect of immoveable property lis pendens will apply even to i....
The principles applicable to granting of relief from lis pendens are not available in any reported case nor are they given in the section This being free from any reported case I have to form my own view as to what are the principles which are to be applied. ... of the grounds for refusing the relief from lis pendens. ... market value claimed by the defendants, and which is not accepted, it will be one of the strong grounds for refusing the' relief of Iis#HL....
The application of the doctrine of lis pendens does not depend upon the purchaser having notice of the suit : even if the transferee pendentelite from a party has no notice of the suit, the rights of the other party to a suit in which a right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question ... Desai urged that in this case the appellant intended to contend that the proceeding between the plaintiff Anasuyabai and Sidram the defendant was a collusive proceeding and there ....
” In short, there can be no doubt that even if Section 52 of T.P Act is not applicable in its strict sense in the present case then too the principles of lis-pendens, which are based on justice, equity and good conscience, would certainly be applicable. ... In other words, the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction on 21.07.2003 and obtained an order of temporary injunction on 28.07.2003. As on 21.07.2003 the doctrine of lis pendens wo....
For the reason given by me, I am unable to adopt the argument that the doctrine of lis pendens is not applicable to the action No. 31,593. ... The doctrine of lis pendens is applicable to sale in execution. An action for specific performance is a lis, to which the doctrine is applicable. THIS was an action for declaration of title. The facts are set out in the judgment of the District Judge (L. M. ... I am of opinion that....
The First Appellate Court further observed that the doctrine of lis pendens is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 7. ... The doctrine of “lis pendens” prohibits a party from dealing with the property which is the subjectmatter of suit. “Lis pendens” itself is treated as constructive notice to a purchaser that he is bound by a decree to be entered in the pending suit. ... The doctrine of lis#....
In short, by way of the Maharashtra Amendment, the rule of lis pendens was made applicable in the area notified by the State Government as provided under sub-section 1. ... Under the Central Act, it is not necessary to register the lis pendens under Section 18 of the Registration Act or under any other Act and, therefore, the purchase of the suit land by the purchaser, while the tenancy proceedings were pending, are affected by the principles of ‘lis....
It is also not in dispute that in violation of the said orders passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the suit schedule property. The rule of lis pendens is applicable to the said sale transaction. ... Therefore, the sale of subject matter by the defendant Nos.1 to defendant No.2 during the pendency of this suit is hit by principle of lis-pendens. ... '#H....
of lis pendens. ... as to attract the principle of lis pendens. ... He would further submit that amendment in Section 52 of the Act applicable to the State of Gujarat would not make it compulsory that notice of every suit is required to be registered and only upon such a notice of lis pendens can be pressed into service. ... It is further observed by the learned Court below that in absence of lis pendens#....
There was no case regarding the ownership of this property, at the time of purchase. Doctrine of lis pendens is not applicable to this transaction. The suit is only a money suit and some other properties were already attached by the Trial Court.
Doctrine of lis pendens is not applicable to this transaction. The suit is only a money suit and some other properties were already attached by the Trial Court. There was no case regarding the ownership of this property, at the time of purchase.
C was prior to the institution of the suit, hence, the principle of lis pendens is not applicable.
C was prior to the institution of the suit, hence, the principle of lis pendens is not applicable.
The appeal had been allowed vide judgment and decree dated 4.11.2011. The first appellate court held that lis pendens was not applicable. There was confirmation of sale and charge was created by fraud and collusion. The application under Order XXI Rule 90 was dismissed in default of appearance and not on merits by a speaking order.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
