Skip to main content

Sale Agreement Executed During Pendency Of Suit Hit By 'Lis Pendens'

In RFA.No. 657 of 2015, V.T.VIJAYAN vs U.KUTTAPPAN NAIR, the question before the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court was whether an agreement for sale executed by a party to the lis, during the pendency of the suit is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens or not?

The Bench observed that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act states that during the pendency of any suit or proceedings, which is not collusive; an immovable property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any of the parties to the suit or proceedings, so as to affect any other party thereto, except under the authority of the court. Further Lis pendens literally means a pending suit and the doctrine of lis pendens has been defined as the jurisdiction, power, or control which a court acquires over property involved in a suit, pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgment therein. The Bench also observed that as per the Privy Council, the broad purpose of Section 52 is to maintain the status quo unaffected by the act of any party to the litigation pending
its determination.

Though an agreement of sale does not by itself create any right, title or interest in the property, it creates an obligation which is capable of being enforced by a court of law. Therefore, it has the potential to adversely affect the interests of a party to the suit.  On a combined reading of section 5A of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, section 37 of the Contract Act,, we find that a contract such as agreement for sale of the subject-matter of the suit during the pendency of the suit, would adversely affect the parties to the suit, and others claiming right under them.



Comments

  1. saivenkat4 November 2020 at 16:36

    I have read your blog and I gathered some needful information from your blog. Keep update your blog. Awaiting for your next update.
    Blockchain technology

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more