INTRODUCTION
Bellamy vs Sabine was a landmark judgement in which sec-52 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 was evolved, Justice turner found the Doctrine of Lis Pendens. The doctrine also known as “pendente lite” mentioned under the sec 52 of the Act. It means a pending legal action, if there is any transfer of any immovable property pending litigation, the same shall not affect the rights of the parties in respect to the immovable property. It prevents the transfer of property during the pending of a suit to the third party.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Bellamy vs Sabine case revolves around the dispute over the ownership of an immovable property. Mr. Bellamy has sold the property to Mr. Sabine. However, a legal challenge was raised against this sale by a third party who claimed a rightful interest in the property. During this, Mr. Sabine, unaware of the ongoing law suit, sold the property to another individual.
ISSUE RAISED
The issue raised in Bellamy vs Sabine whether the transfer of immovable property during the pendency of a lawsuit, involving its ownership creates any rights for the purchaser.
ARGUMENTS
The arguments in Bellamy vs Sabine case centered around the principle of Lis pendens, means pending suit. It states that any transfer of property rights during the pendency of litigation or suit does not affect the rights of the parties involved in the lawsuit. It serves status quo of property ownership until the court made a final decision on the matter.
JUDGEMENT
The court presided over by Justice Turner, held that Doctrine of Lis pendens applies to this case. The court held that the transfer of property by Mr. Sabine to another individual was held invalid due to ongoing pendency of litigation in the court regarding the rightful ownership of the property.
The court held that it prevents the parties from alienating the property in dispute during litigation. And also stated that if it allows such alienations are allowed, it would become very difficult for court to reach a final judgement.
LEGAL REASONING IN BELLAMY VS SABINE
In Bellamy vs Sabine the court stated that the purpose of doctrine of Lis pendens is to maintain status quo of the property’s ownership until the dispute is resolved. Allowing the parties to transfer property rights during suit pending in the court would undermine the court authority and leads to litigation.
The court further stated that the doctrine serves as warning to purchaser, that any purchase made during the pendency of the suit subject to outcome of that litigation.
By maintaining the status quo, the doctrine helps to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and uphold the principle of fairness in property disputes.
APPLICATION OF DOCTRINE OF LIS PENDENS
The court in Bellamy vs Sabine applied the Doctrine of Lis pendens to the case, stating that the property in dispute could not be transferred to other which will affect the parties to lawsuit. The sale of property by Mr. Sabine during the pendency of litigation deemed to be invalid and the purchaser acquired no rights to the property.
SIGNIFICANCE
Bellamy vs Sabine is a landmark case in which Doctrine of Lis pendens was established in English Law. This prevented the passage of property during pending of a suit. The Doctrine of Lis pendens had been adopted in various jurisdictions.
The case set a precedent for application of Lis pendens, emphasizing the need to maintain status quo of property ownership during litigation and to preserve the integrity of judicial process and protect the rights of the parties involved.
Since this case the Doctrine of Lis pendens has been widely applied and recognized in property law across various legal systems. It remains a vital tool for ensuring justice and fairness in property disputes.
DOCTRINE OF LIS PENDENS IN INDIA
In India, it is mentioned under section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. It provides pendency of proceeding would begin on the date the plaint is presented as well as instituted in the competent court jurisdiction and it would end on the date the final decree or order is passed by the court, or it has become unobtainable because of expiry of limitation period. The effect of doctrine is not to nullify the transfer, but to make it subject to litigation.
In Rajendar Singh vs Santa Singh, the supreme court observed that doctrine of Lis pendens intends to strike at any attempts made by the parties to the suit curtailing the jurisdiction of the court through private dealings, which affect the subject matter of suit and prevent court from deciding the dispute in relation to property.
ESSENTIALS OF DOCTINRE OF LIS PENDENS
Some of the essentials mentioned under section 52 are as:
*There must be pendency of the suit.
*The suit must be pending in a court which has the jurisdiction to try it.
*The right to the title immovable property is directly in question.
*The suit or proceeding must not be collusive.
*The immovable property in dispute is transferred/dealt with any party to the suit.
*Such transfer effect the rights of the other party involved in the suit/proceeding.
CONCLUSION
The doctrine of Lis Pendens is in consonance with public policy and with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. It prevents any party to the suit to alienate the property themselves and interrupt the working of the court. It also ensures that no person’s right is curbed due to another’s will.
SUBMITTED BY
P. SASI REKHA
FINAL YEAR BA LLB
DR. BR AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW
