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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more