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

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Harshad Govardhan Sondagar VS International Assets Reconstruction...

Checking relevance for MANGAL AMUSEMENT PARK (P) LTD. VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH...

Checking relevance for Shyam Lal VS Deepa Dass Chela Ram Chela Garib Dass...

Checking relevance for Dev Raj Dogra VS Gyan Chand Jain...

Checking relevance for Amit Kumar Shaw VS Farida Khatoon...

Checking relevance for Mangru Mahto: Ramanandan Lal VS Thakur Taraknathji Tarkeahwar Math...

Checking relevance for Abdul Kadhar vs Barakath Begum...

Checking relevance for Savitri Devi VS Civil Judge Junior Division Court No. 22 Barabanki...

Savitri Devi VS Civil Judge Junior Division Court No. 22 Barabanki - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 138 : Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (lis pendens) does not render a transfer of property during the pendency of a suit void ab initio, but makes it subservient to the rights eventually determined by the court in the pending litigation. The transfer pendente lite is effective in transferring title subject to the final decision of the court, and the doctrine of lis pendens does not annul the conveyance but only renders it operative insofar as the rights of the other parties to the suit are concerned. The court has discretion to exempt the suit property from the operation of Section 52, subject to conditions such as reasonable security, particularly in appropriate cases where the transferee has a substantial interest in the property.Checking relevance for Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd VS D. Prabhavathi...

Checking relevance for Vijay S/o. Harinarayan Choudhary VS Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...

Checking relevance for Nirmalendu Datta VS Poulami Datta...

Checking relevance for K. Subramanyam VS V. Vijaya Kumari...

Checking relevance for S. R. Trust Rep. by its Trustee, G. Sakthi Saravanan, Meenakshi Mission Hospital & Research Centre, Madurai VS Inspector General of Registration, Chennai...

Checking relevance for C. M. BEENA VS P. N. RAMACHANDRA RAO...

Checking relevance for C. M. Beena VS P. N. Ramachandra Rao...

Checking relevance for Residents Welfare Association, Noida VS State of U. P. ...

Checking relevance for Pradeep Oil Corporation VS Municipal Corporation of Delhi...

Checking relevance for Raghuramrao VS Eric P. Mathias...

Checking relevance for Anaji Thamaji Patil VS Ragho Bhivraj Patil and Anr...

Checking relevance for LOV RAJ KUMAR VS MAJOR DAYA SHANKER...

Checking relevance for MADAN MOHAN KUKRETI VS GEETA BHAWAN...

Checking relevance for Manuvel Sathianesan VS Mallan Sankaran...

Manuvel Sathianesan VS Mallan Sankaran - 1956 0 Supreme(Ker) 29 : The court held that a lease deed executed during the pendency of a suit on a simple mortgage was in violation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and was hit by the rule of lis pendens. The mortgagor in possession cannot lease the mortgaged property to the prejudice of the mortgagee''''s right, and the lease deed could not be availed of to the detriment of the plaintiff. This establishes that under Section 52, a lease during litigation involving a mortgaged property is invalid if it prejudices the mortgagee''''s rights, and the rule of lis pendens applies to prevent such transactions.Checking relevance for MAGANLAL JAGJIWANDAS VS LAKHIRAM HARIDASMAL...

MAGANLAL JAGJIWANDAS VS LAKHIRAM HARIDASMAL - 1967 0 Supreme(Guj) 101 : Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act prohibits any party to a suit or proceeding in which a right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question from transferring or otherwise dealing with the property in a manner that affects the rights of the other party to the suit, except under the authority of the court and on such terms as it may impose. This restriction applies during the pendency of the suit, which commences from the date of presentation of the plaint and continues until the suit is disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree has been obtained. The section is designed to maintain a status quo and prevent any alienation that could prejudice the rights of the other party, including the right to possession or sale of the property. In the context of a mortgage suit, a lease created by the mortgagor after the suit is filed is not binding on the mortgagee or any subsequent purchaser (such as an auction purchaser) and the lessee must take subject to the result of the suit. This applies even if the lease is otherwise valid under Section 65A, as Section 52 takes precedence in cases where a suit is pending.

• Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Deals with the doctrine of lis pendens, which prohibits transfer of immovable property during the pendency of a suit concerning that property. The act aims to protect the plaintiff’s rights by preventing alienation that could affect the suit's outcome. An application or transaction during pendency is generally subject to the suit’s outcome and the principles of lis pendens S.M.Syed Abdul Khader vs The Sub Registrar - Madras.

• Pendency and Transfer of Property - During the pendency of a suit, the transfer of property is restricted. Circulars or administrative instructions cannot override statutory provisions like Section 52, which mandates registration and notice of pending suits. Any circular that attempts to restrict such transfers beyond legal provisions is considered unlawful S.M.Syed Abdul Khader vs The Sub Registrar - Madras.

• Section 52-A of the NDPS Act - Violations of Section 52-A, which pertains to the mandatory compliance during investigations and seizures under the NDPS Act, can impact bail and trial proceedings. Non-compliance can be grounds for bail denial or other legal remedies, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements under the Act LES RAJ vs STATE OF HP - Himachal Pradesh.

• Pendency and Criminal Proceedings - In cases involving criminal investigations (e.g., NDPS cases), violations of procedural provisions like Section 52-A can be grounds for bail or other reliefs. Courts have held that delays or lapses in compliance do not necessarily vitiate the proceedings but can be relevant for bail considerations LES RAJ vs STATE OF HP - Himachal Pradesh.

• Judicial Decisions on Pendency and Property Transfer - Courts have consistently upheld the principle that during the pendency of civil suits, transfer of immovable property is subject to lis pendens, and such transfers are generally voidable or subject to the suit’s outcome. Proper registration and notice are essential to uphold legal rights during pendency SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA vs SRI M VARADARAJU - Karnataka.

• Amendments and State Variations - Gujarat and Maharashtra have specific amendments requiring registration of notices of pendency of suits under Section 52, aligning with the principles of lis pendens. These amendments clarify procedural requirements for registering pending suit notices to safeguard rights JIVRAJBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL vs STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat.

Analysis and Conclusion:Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act establishes that during the pendency of a suit relating to immovable property, any transfer made without court permission is generally subject to the doctrine of lis pendens, rendering such transfers potentially voidable. The law emphasizes the importance of proper registration and notice to prevent alienation that could prejudice the suit’s outcome. In criminal contexts, like under the NDPS Act, procedural compliance, especially Section 52-A, is crucial, and violations can influence bail and trial proceedings. State-specific amendments further reinforce the procedural safeguards, ensuring transparency and protection of rights during ongoing litigation.