Court : Allahabad
..... transferee of a judgment debtor is presumed to be aware of the proceeding of the court below and in view of the doctrine of lis pendense enshrined under section 52 of the transfer of property act obstruction to a decree by such purchaser under order 21 rule 102, 97, 98 and 100 c.p.c. ..... defendant no. 1 died on 15.7.1995 and his two sons samiullaha defendant no. 2 and faridullaha probably considering themselves to be the owners of the property by inheritance, transferred the disputed property vide sale deed dated 3.11.1997 in favour of the present petitioners shabbir ahmad, subhan ahmad and irafn ahmad. 11. it may be noteworthy that the ..... liable to succeed on the aforesaid finding alone. conclusion:- in the end, i conclude as under:- (i) the sale deed dated 31.11.1997 transferring the suit property to the petitioners is not void; (ii) petitioners are 'representatives' of defendant no.2 shamiullaha (judgment debtor) within the meaning of section 47 ..... of any injunction order. 28. the interim order dated 16.1.1998 passed in the execution proceedings do restrains the parties from making transfer of the property, but the said order was passed subsequent to the sale deed dated 3.11.1997 and would not affect the same. there was ..... is invalid or null and void as argued to be in breach of the injunction orders and within the teeth of section 52 of the transfer of property act, 1882. 26. it is true that any action taken subsequent to passing of an interim order and in disobedience of the same .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2008(1)WLN111
..... transfer of property by a party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the court and on such terms as it may impose. in brief this provision contains the doctrine of lis pendense ..... and prohibits creation of third party rights during the pendency of the suit, in order to protect and preserve the suit property so that when the inter-party rights are determined by the court on the basis ..... in favour of naboo on 01.06.1998 during the pendency of the suit and said sale was hit by section 52 of the transfer of property act by the doctrine of lis pen-dense and thus the said sale in favour of naboo deserves to be ignored being void.7. the learned trial court agreed ..... the court and impleaded naboo also as defendant no. 2 and which agreement has been found as unenforceable in view of section 52 of the transfer of property act by the learned trial court and rightly so in the opinion of this court.19. the agreement in favour of plaintiff exhibit-1 executed by ..... of pleadings and evidence, such suit property is available to be given and enjoyed by the party .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai Nagpur
..... that in present matter title of petitioner's vendor was already in dispute and during pendency, he transferred that property to present petitioner. the observation of hon'ble apex court in 2004 air scw 470 raj. c.p. sen v. sardari lal, shows that the doctrine of "lis pendense" expressed in the maxim "ut lite pendente nihil innoventur" (during a litigation nothing new should be ..... introduced) has been statutorily incorporated in s. 52 of the transfer of property act, 1882. a defendant cannot, by alienating property during the pendency of litigation, venture into depriving the successful plaintiff of the ..... by trial court at appropriate stage as and when or if it arises.8. thus this discussion shows that in a title suit valued appropriately initially, the challenge to lis pendense transfers is not essential. the party who indulges in such prohibited act can not thereby require the aggrieved party to alter the otherwise valid valuation already made and pay more court ..... suit is for declaration that petitioner has ceased to be the owner and title stands vested in plaintiff due to adverse possession. as suit is a title suit, the transfer of suit property during its pendency is not binding on plaintiff and also he is not party to that transaction. the sale deed therefore need not have been challenged also. the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR494
..... the alienation obviously would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendense by operation of section 52. under these circumstances, the respondents cannot be considered to be either necessary or proper parties to the suit.reference is also made to section 52 of the transfer of property act. admittedly, the defendants, without prior permission for sale, transferred the property during the pendency of the suit.3. the ..... s.c. 1062, while considering the same provision i.e., order 1, rule 10 of the c.p.c. and section 52 of the transfer of property act held as under:5. section 52 deals with a transfer of property pending suit. in the instant case, the appellants have admittedly purchased the undivided shares of the respondents nos. 2,3,4 and 6. it ..... suit. the appellants will now be at liberty to file the written statements in the pending suit.5. the principle whosoever transfers the property during the pendency of the suit is definitely governed by the provisions of section 52 of the transfer of property act. but in the present facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the amendment as sought needs to ..... person who is the main party in the suit if transfers such property and/or alienates the premises or the property, it will create great difficulty during the execution of the decree .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2004)136PLR472
..... applies and as per the provisions of section, 52 of the transfer of property act, the plaintiff could not claim any irreparable loss. with these observations the application under order 39 rules ..... property of udham singh stood satisfied. it was further observed that the plaintiff had failed to disclose about filing of the earlier suit and as such had not come to the court with clean chest. he had also not disclosed about the factum of the sale by udham singh in his favour. the learned trial court held that the doctrine of lis pendense ..... any alienation made by the defendants during pendency of the suit would of course be covered by the provisions of section 52 of the transfer of property act after final decision of the suit.10. in my view, the judgments of the courts below do not suffer from any apparent illegality ..... plaintiff and no sale consideration was made before the sub registrar, thus apparently the said sale deed was also by way of a gratuitous transfer by udham singh in favour of the plaintiff. accordingly, the said suit was never disclosed by the plaintiff in his plaintiff. in my ..... upon the rights of the plaintiff and defendant no. 4. the plaintiff then asserts that the defendants have no right to alienate the suit property and to dispossess the plaintiff. accordingly in the main suit for declaration a prayer for interim injunction was also made.3. the suit was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2010)157PLR338
..... education trust's case (supra), is fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. since the property, was purchased by the revision-petitioner, during the pendency of the suit, the transfer is hit by the doctrine of lis-pendense, as embodied in section 52 of vhe transfer of property act, 1882. the revision-petitioner, being the transferee pendente-lite, is to step into the shoes of ..... his/her vendor, and will be bound by the decree, which may be, ultimately, passed, in the suit. she, therefore, could not be said to have any independent right, in the property, in ..... dispute. the protection of section 41 of the transfer of property act, was not available to the revision-petitioner. the counsel for the revision-petitioner, placed reliance on jaswinder singh and ors. v. ran singh and ..... further submitted that the suit, was restored, on 15.11.07. he further submitted that technically, it could not be said that the suit, was pending, when she purchased the property, from respondent no. 2. he further submitted that the revision-petitioner, was not aware of the pendency of the suit, and dismissal thereof in default. he further submitted that the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai Nagpur
..... the nature, scope and applicability of the doctrine of lis pendense. the requirements are :(i) there must be suit or proceeding pending in a court of competent jurisdiction;(ii) the suit must not be collusive;(iii) the litigation must be one in which right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question;(iv) transfer of suit property by a party to a suit;(vi) ..... said sitaram khobragade or his legal heirs i.e. defendants have no right/share in suit property. they failed to vacate despite notice served on 22.4.2006. according to defendants, sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is void as hit by doctrine of 'lis pendense'. the trial court found favour with the defendant and recorded finding that the sale deed in favour ..... of the plaintiff was hit by doctrine of 'lis pendense' while disbelieving the plaintiff's case, dismissed the suit.4. learned advocate for appellant submitted that as ..... such transfer must affect the rights of other party .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
..... to section 52 of tp act, but not on this score. it is pertinent to note that in its report, the law commission has also considered the provisions of temporary injunction in the light of the doctrine of lis pendens, but did not find it necessary to consider the provisions of temporary injunction as redundant in view of doctrine of lis pendense, nor put any additional ..... a restraint is placed by court of law on its alienation or disposal and if this is the legal position, then, there was no impediment in respondent no.2 transferring the said property in favour of petitioners. 98. as against it, learned counsel for the respondent therein has submitted that, a transaction, which is entered into either to defeat the ..... relied upon, but the language thereof needs to be carefully perused and understood. the title of section 52 itself is indicative of the intent of the legislature, which is transfer of property pending suit relating thereto , the section itself speaks of pendency in any court having authority within the limits of india, excluding the state of jammu and kashmir, of any ..... consider necessity of imposing suitable conditions to protect plaintiffs' interests short of granting injunction - like seeking undertaking that no equities would be claimed, on account of sale/development of properties; effecting sales only after putting transferees to notice that their rights would be subject to suit etc.. interests of prospective purchasers would also be protected if plaintiffs in such cases .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2006P& H171; (2006)143PLR304
..... execution of a decree for maintenance. such a course would result into extreme injustice to the decree holder. section 52 of the tpa incorporates the doctrine of lis pendense which is based on common law principle that any transfer made during pendency of the proceeding before the court would be subject to the result of the judgment and decree eventually passed. therefore, it would ..... be highly unconscious and unjust to permit a husband, to alienate his property with an oblique motive to defeat the legal right of maintenance of his wife ..... . milkha singh a.i.r. 1941 lahore 407 (fc). the logical consequence would then be that as charge-holders the respondents would be entitled under section 91 of the transfer of property act to seek the redemption of the mortgage.10. in the case of rakesh wadhawan (supra) the supreme court has again endorsed the aforementioned principle in para 20.11. when ..... no room whatever for any contention that the respondents would not constitute to claim a charge over the allotted land under section 55(6)(b) of the transfer of property act. though the provisions of transfer of property act are not applicable to the state of punjab the principle enunciated in section 55(6) has been held applicable to punjab on grounds of justice .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2006Mad288; 2006(3)CTC702; (2006)2MLJ362
..... be made a party an they are willing to take the risk. it is settled law that any alienation subsequent to the filing of the suit is hit by the doctrine of lis pendense. the subsequent purchasers are aware of the proceedings and they are definitely bound by the decision in the suit and the proceedings.the observations of justice k.sampath, followed ..... suit are neither necessary nor proper parties inasmuch as they would be bound by the decree n the suit in view of the principle enunciated in section 52 of the transfer of property act. i hold that the parties sought to be impleaded as defendants in the suit and respondents in the final decree application are neither necessary nor proper parties. i ..... without such notice, the transferor shall, in addition to any other liability which he incurs through such neglect, continue to be liable for the payment of property tax until he gives notice of the transfer to the municipality. it is also stated that such liability is independent of the liability of the transferee of the payment of tax. learned counsel for the ..... defendant had no title on the date of prior suit and execution proceedings; (xi) under section 88(4) of the district municipalities act, transfers must be notified to the municipality and under section 55(2) of the transfer of property act, vendor shall protect the rights of the vendee; (xii) the court auction sale is invalid for want of notice under order 21 .....Tag this Judgment!