Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Celir LLP VS Sumati Prasad Bafna...

Celir LLP VS Sumati Prasad Bafna - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1187 : A transfer during the pendency of a partition suit is subject to the doctrine of lis pendens, even in the absence of an interim injunction. This is because Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA) prohibits the transfer or dealing with immovable property during the pendency of a suit where the right to such property is directly and specifically in question, and the doctrine applies regardless of whether an interim injunction has been granted. The doctrine vests the court with control over the property to prevent any action that could render the litigation infructuous, and any transfer made during this period binds the transferee, even without notice of the suit.Checking relevance for Thomson Press (India) Ltd. VS Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd. ...

Thomson Press (India) Ltd. VS Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd. - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 185 : A transfer during the pendency of a suit relating to immovable property, including a partition suit, is subject to the doctrine of lis pendens, even in the absence of an interim injunction. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, establishes that during the pendency of any suit in which a right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred in a manner that affects the rights of other parties under any decree that may be made. The doctrine applies regardless of whether an interim injunction has been granted, as its purpose is to maintain the status quo and prevent parties from circumventing the court''''s jurisdiction through private dealings. The principle binds not only the parties to the suit but also those who derive title pendente lite, ensuring that the court''''s final decree is effective against all interested parties, including transferees who acquired the property during litigation.Checking relevance for Rajender Singh VS Santa Singh...

Rajender Singh VS Santa Singh - 1973 0 Supreme(SC) 247 : A transfer during the pendency of a suit involving immovable property is subject to the doctrine of lis pendens, even in the absence of an interim injunction. The doctrine, as defined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, prevents any party to a suit from transferring or otherwise dealing with the property in a manner that affects the rights of other parties under a potential decree. This applies regardless of whether an interim injunction has been granted, as the doctrine arises from the court''''s inherent jurisdiction over the subject matter of litigation to prevent the frustration of pending proceedings. The prohibition under Section 52 is not limited to formal transfers but extends to any dealing that could undermine the court''''s power to adjudicate and enforce its decree. However, the doctrine does not apply to acts such as illegal or wrongful possession, which are one-sided and not comparable to bilateral transactions like transfers. Thus, while a transfer during pendency is bound by lis pendens, mere possession—especially adverse possession—does not fall within the scope of ''''dealing with'''' property under Section 52.Checking relevance for Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. VS Katta Sujatha Reddy...

Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. VS Katta Sujatha Reddy - 2024 8 Supreme 321 : Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which embodies the doctrine of lis pendens, bars the transfer of suit property during the pendency of litigation, regardless of whether an interim injunction exists. The doctrine applies from the date of institution of the suit until the final disposal of the suit by a final decree or order, and complete satisfaction of such decree or order. Any transfer made during this period is subject to the final result of the litigation, and a third-party purchaser is bound by the outcome even if they had no notice of the suit. This principle ensures that the process of the court is not subverted and rendered infructuous.Checking relevance for T. G. Ashok Kumar VS Govindammal...

T. G. Ashok Kumar VS Govindammal - 2010 8 Supreme 338 : A transfer during the pendency of a partition suit is subject to the doctrine of lis pendens even in the absence of an interim injunction. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which governs lis pendens, does not require the existence of an interim injunction for its application. The doctrine applies to any transfer of immovable property made during the pendency of a suit in which any right to the property is directly and specifically in question, regardless of whether an interim injunction has been granted. The transfer is not void or illegal under Section 52, but the pendente lite purchaser is bound by the final decision in the pending litigation. Thus, the sale is subject to the outcome of the partition suit, even without an interim injunction.

• Doctrine of Lis Pendens - Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, incorporates the doctrine of lis pendens, which applies to immovable property involved in a pending suit. It states that any transfer during the pendency of such a suit is subject to the outcome, meaning the transfer does not become automatically void but is rendered inoperative against the rights of the parties involved in the litigation Gur Lal Singh VS State Of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. - Allahabad.

• Transfer During Pendency Without Interim Injunction - Even if no interim injunction is granted, the doctrine of lis pendens still applies to transfers made during the pendency of a suit, including partition suits. Such transfers are not automatically void but are subject to the court’s decision, and the rights acquired may be subordinate to the final decree. The mere pendency of a suit restricts the transfer's enforceability against the parties to the litigation, but does not prevent dealing with the property generally Gur Lal Singh VS State Of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. - Allahabad, Abdul Kadhar vs Barakath Begum - Madras.

• Applicability to Partition Suits - The doctrine extends to partition suits, where transfers or alienations made during the suit are subject to the litigation’s outcome. Courts have clarified that even transfers based on family arrangements or re-adjustments among co-owners during the pendency of a partition suit are affected by lis pendens, emphasizing that such transfers do not confer definitive rights until the suit concludes Abdul Kadhar vs Barakath Begum - Madras, R. Nagaraj, S/O Sri. M.K. Radhakrishna Reddy vs Bhagyamma, D/O Late Sri. Chikka Chennappa - Karnataka.

• Effect of Transfers Made During Pendency - Transfers made during the pendency of a suit, including after its dismissal or during appeals, remain subject to lis pendens. The doctrine aims to prevent third parties from acquiring rights that could undermine the litigation, and such transfers are not automatically invalid but are subordinate to the court’s final decision. Transferees pendente lite are bound by the outcome, and their interests are subject to the decree Nabo Narayan Jha vs Kamlesh Jha and Ors - Patna, Nabo Narayan Jha VS Kamlesh Jha - Patna.

• No Automatic Voidance but Inoperative - The general consensus is that transfers during the pendency of a suit are not automatically void but are rendered inoperative or subordinate until the suit is decided. This ensures the integrity of the litigation process and prevents third parties from acquiring rights that could conflict with the court’s judgment Gur Lal Singh VS State Of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. - Allahabad, Savitri Devi VS Civil Judge Junior Division Court No. 22 Barabanki - Allahabad.

• Public Policy and Equity - The doctrine is rooted in public policy and equity, aiming to preserve the status quo and prevent third-party rights from conflicting with the litigation’s outcome. It does not prohibit dealing with the property but restricts the transfer’s enforceability against the litigants until the suit’s resolution Abdul Kadhar vs Barakath Begum - Madras, Amad Noormamad Madakia VS Ghanchi Ismail Hasan Madakia - Current Civil Cases.

Analysis and Conclusion:A transfer during the pendency of a partition suit is subject to the doctrine of lis pendens regardless of whether an interim injunction exists. Such transfers are not automatically void but are deemed inoperative concerning the rights of the parties involved until the court issues a final decree. This principle ensures that the litigation’s integrity is maintained and prevents third-party rights from conflicting with the court’s determination. Therefore, even in the absence of an interim injunction, a transfer during pendency remains under the shadow of lis pendens, affecting its enforceability until the suit concludes.