Topic
Lis pendens in Indian law refers to the legal principle that prevents transfer of property subject to pending litigation, ensuring disputes are resolved without prejudicing third-party interests.
MPHC held lis pendens binds subsequent purchasers, affirming specific performance and ordering execution of sale deed in plaintiff’s favor despite bona fide purchase, confirming Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act overrides innocent buyer defenses.
The Madras High Court ruled that an executing court cannot set aside a specific performance decree based on a judgment that did not examine the sale agreement, and that a pendente lite purchaser has no right to resist execution under Section 47 CPC.
Supreme Court rules that even erroneous fact-based orders bind parties under res judicata unless jurisdictional defects exist. Clarifies impleadment of transferees pendente lite under CPC Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10, impacting property dispute litigants.
Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside a First Appellate Court's order reversing a trial court's refusal of an injunction, emphasizing that appellate interference under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC requires reasoned analysis and adherence to procedural safeguards. The ruling clarifies the scope of appellate jurisdiction in injunction disputes involving property and registered wills.
Karnataka High Court rules that the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not automatically invalidate registration of sale deeds if no operative injunction restrains alienation. The Sub-Registrar cannot refuse registration solely based on a pending suit unless a court order explicitly prohibits transfer.
Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirms that a purchaser of property during pendency of a title suit cannot be impleaded as a party unless she applies for it herself. The court held that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act binds all subsequent transferees, and any decree passed in the suit will automatically bind them, negating the need for their impleadment.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that daughters cannot challenge property transactions completed by their father before 20.12.2004, as the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act is prospective. The decision reinforces that pre-amendment alienations remain valid, even if litigation was pending at the time of the amendment.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that even if a purchaser pendente lite is deleted from a suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the decree-holder may still execute against them under Order 21 Rule 35 if the transfer occurred during litigation and the purchaser claims through the judgment debtor. This clarifies that lis pendens rights survive procedural deletions, protecting decree-holders from strategic evasion by transferees.
Madras High Court rules that the pendency of a civil suit does not automatically bar registration of a sale deed unless a court injunction or stay is in place. The Sub Registrar's refusal to register without such an order is arbitrary, reinforcing registration as a ministerial duty under the Registration Act.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a purchaser of disputed property during litigation must be impleaded as a defendant to ensure fair adjudication and prevent multiple proceedings. The court held that failure to implead such a purchaser under CPC Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 22 Rule 10 would defeat the purpose of lis pendens and lead to procedural injustice.
Karnataka HC rules that time is not of the essence in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and that a pendente lite transfer is invalid even without a court injunction, as the purchaser had constructive notice of litigation. The court awarded Rs. 50 lakh in damages to the plaintiff despite dismissing the specific performance claim, emphasizing the protection of lis pendens rights under the Transfer of Property Act.
The NCDRC has ruled that any third-party allotment or sale of property during the pendency of a consumer complaint is void under the doctrine of lis pendens, regardless of subsequent registration. Decree holders are entitled to possession upon depositing the outstanding balance, reinforcing that consumer rights supersede speculative transfers during litigation.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a sale deed executed under a prior agreement to sell cannot be invalidated by a subsequent release deed, as the latter is void under lis pendens. The court upheld the sale deed's validity despite the absence of registrar endorsement, relying on witness testimony to establish payment of consideration.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a mutual agreement to extend the sale deadline binds parties to specific performance, even if subsequent sales occur during litigation. The court held that lis pendens overrides bona fide purchaser claims, voiding transactions made in violation of an injunction. This reinforces the primacy of contractual agreements and lis pendens in property disputes.
Madras High Court reinforces the lis pendens principle by directing revenue authorities to refrain from mutating patta records while civil suits over disputed land are pending. The ruling protects litigants' rights by preventing irreversible changes to revenue records until final adjudication, even after interim injunctions lapse.