Doctrine of Lis Pendens -( Section 52 Transfer of Property Act 1882)

I. INTRODUCTION – DOCTRINE OF LIS PENDENS

The law laid down in Section 52 is founded on the doctrine of lis pendens. The term 'lis' refers to ‘litigation,’ while 'pendens' means ‘pending.’ This doctrine is expressed in the maxim pendente lite nihil innovetur, which translates to “during the pendency of litigation, nothing new should be introduced.” The essence of the principle is that when a suit concerning the title of a property is pending, no new interest in that property should be created. Any such creation of title or interest amounts to a transfer of property. Thus, the doctrine of lis pendens prohibits the transfer of property while a dispute regarding it is under adjudication.

II. SECTION 52 – TEXT OF THE PROVISION

Section 52 provides that during the pendency of any suit or proceeding in any court having jurisdiction within India or in a court established outside India by the Central Government, which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in issue, the property in question cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party so as to affect the rights of any other party under any decree or order that may ultimately be passed—except with the permission of the court and subject to such terms as it may impose.

Explanation: For the purposes of this section, a suit or proceeding is deemed to be pending from the date of presentation of the plaint or institution of the proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction, and continues until a final decree or order is passed and completely satisfied or discharged, or until such satisfaction or discharge has become impossible due to expiry of the limitation period for execution.

III. PRINCIPLE

Section 52 encapsulates the doctrine of lis pendens, which means “pending litigation.” The principle is that when litigation is ongoing between two parties over an immovable property, and one of them transfers the disputed property, the transferee is bound by the eventual outcome of the litigation—regardless of whether they had notice of the dispute.

This is not because the pending suit amounts to notice, but because the law does not permit a litigating party to transfer rights in the disputed property in a manner that could prejudice the other party’s interest. The doctrine rests on grounds of expediency—it is intended to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and ensure a final adjudication. It serves to protect one litigant against any act of the other that could alter the subject matter of the suit.

In Samrendra Nath Sinha v. Krishna Kumar Nag (1967), the Court held that a transferee pendente lite is bound by the result of the litigation because the outcome must bind not only the parties to the case but also those claiming through them.

IV. EFFECT OF THE DOCTRINE

A transfer made during the pendency of litigation is not automatically void; it simply cannot affect the rights of the other party under the eventual decree or order. The transfer remains valid between the transferor and transferee but is subject to the result of the litigation.

In Prabhakar v. Antonio (AIR 1971 ), it was observed that such transfers are not void but merely voidable at the option of the affected party.

Illustrations:

1. A sues B over a house in B’s possession. While the suit is pending, B sells the house to C. If A’s suit is dismissed, C’s purchase stands unaffected.
2. If in the same situation A’s suit is decreed, the sale to C is voidable, and A’s right to recover the house remains intact.

V. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS

1. Pendency of a Suit

As per the Explanation to Section 52, the pendency begins from the date the plaint is filed in a competent court and continues until the matter is finally resolved and the decree satisfied. If the plaint is filed in a court lacking jurisdiction, the doctrine will not apply. Even after dismissal of a suit, if an appeal is filed, the pendency continues.

2. Bona Fide Litigation

The suit must not be collusive. A collusive suit is one filed with a secret understanding between the parties to achieve an ulterior motive, such as defeating the rights of a third party. For example, if A and B agree that B will file a suit against A without serious contest, and during its pendency sell the property to D, the transaction may not be protected by lis pendens.

3. Right to Property in Dispute

The dispute must directly involve rights in immovable property—such as suits for partition, specific performance, or mortgage enforcement. Cases involving rent, debt recovery, or general damages typically fall outside its scope unless the property is specifically charged.

4. Transfer by a Party to the Litigation

The property must be transferred by one of the litigating parties. Transfers by third parties with a paramount title, unconnected to the suit, are not affected. For instance, if A leases land to B, and B sues C for possession, a sale by A to E during the pendency of the suit would not attract lis pendens.

5. Transfer Affecting the Other Party

The doctrine applies only if the transfer affects the rights of the other party in the litigation. If only the transferor’s rights are impacted, it does not apply (Sripal Singh v. Naresh, 1925 ).

VI. INVOLUNTARY TRANSFERS

The doctrine applies even to involuntary transfers, such as court sales. In Radha Madhub v. Munshur, a property mortgaged to B was sold in execution of a decree obtained by a third party C during the pendency of a mortgage suit. The court held that C’s purchase was subject to lis pendens.

VII. EXCEPTIONS

Despite the doctrine, a court may permit a party to transfer the property during litigation, subject to conditions it deems fit.

VIII. CONCLUSION

The doctrine of lis pendens, under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is a crucial safeguard ensuring that the rights of litigating parties over disputed property are not undermined by transfers during the pendency of a suit. It binds transferees to the eventual decision of the court, thereby preserving judicial authority and fairness.

Its operation, however, depends on specific prerequisites—such as the pendency of a genuine, non-collusive suit involving immovable property rights. While it is effective in preventing parties from circumventing legal outcomes, it may also restrict legitimate transactions. Hence, a careful balance is required between protecting litigants’ rights and allowing lawful property dealings. Ultimately, the principle reinforces the idea that justice must not be compromised by strategic transfers made while litigation is ongoing.

IX. REFERENCES
1.Rahuls's Ias Notes
2.https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/transfer-of-property-act-doct/doctrine-of-lis-pendens
3.https://www.alec.co.in/show-blog-page/doctrine-of-lis-pendens-under-the-transfer-of-property-act-1882
4.https://lawbhoomi.com/doctrine-of-lis-pendens-and-section-52-of-transfer-of-property-act/