Author: Akash Dey Bhowmick; a student at St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata
INTRODUCTION
The doctrine of lis pendens prevents any transfer of property when a litigation is pending so as to ensure that any judicial proceeding is not rendered to futility by any outside of court action of any party. It is based on the well-known maxim of ‘pendente lite nihil innovature’ which necessitates that during the pendency of any suit in regards to the title of any property, no new interest in relation to the same can be created. It does not annul the conveyance of property but rather makes the transmission of the property subservient to the parties who are already involved in the litigation. The transferee is made bound to the result of the suit irrespective of the fact whether he has had a notice of the same or not.
FACTS, ISSUES AND ARGUMENT RAISED
In this case, the dispute concerns the ownership of an immovable property where one Mr. Bellamy has sold it to one Mr. Sabine. The legal challenge arose when a third party claimed a rightful interest in the property that was being sold. Along with this, what further aggravated the problem was Mr. Sabine selling off the property to another individual while being unaware of the ongoing lawsuit that has been initiated earlier.
The central issue that got raised resultant of such a peculiar scenario was whether the transfer of the immovable property while its lawsuit was still pending directly and specifically created any right for the purchaser to that property.
Hence, the entire argument in this case revolved around the concept of a ‘pending suit’ and the doctrine of lis pendens has clarified that the rights of parties involved in a lawsuit remains unaffected during the pendency of a litigation of a transfer of property rights matter.
LEGAL REASONING AND RATIONALE BEHIND THE JUDGEMENT MADE
It was held that the sale of the property by Mr. Bellamy to Mr. Sabine and his further action of selling the property to another individual was invalid since a litigation was ongoing in concern to the property’s rightful ownership. It was further emphasised that the doctrine of lis pendens is not to be misconceived as a doctrine of notice. The principle of lis pendens is to avert disruptions during a litigation and to give timely effectivity to a litigation so as to pave way for a judgement to be enforced against a property in question.
The legal reasoning behind such a judgement being passed was to uphold the main intent of the doctrine which in turn is to serve as a warning to the potential purchasers and to make them informed that they stand at a chance of being subjected to the outcome of the pending litigation.
It was also upheld that a property in dispute cannot be transferred that might affect the rights of the parties involved in the lawsuit. Based on this rationale, the sale of property by Mr. Sabine during the pendency of litigation was deemed invalid with the subsequent purchaser acquiring no rights to the property.
For instance, supposing that one Mr. A has sold an immovable property to Mr. B. Later on, Mr. A’s son, Mr. Z who happens to be the heir of Mr. A sues Mr. B to have the sale declared void. In the meanwhile, with the litigation pending, Mr. B sells the property to Mr. C who does not take notice of the impending suit. Now, according to the doctrine of lis pendens, the court holds Mr. Z i.e. the son of Mr. A as the one entitled to the property and the earlier entered into sale of immovable property by Mr. A to Mr. B is set aside. As a result, Mr. C who has purchased the property from Mr. B does not get any title since he has purchased the same from someone who did not have any title over it to even convey it to someone else at the first place even.
CONCLUSION
This case underscored the importance of having litigation procedures in relation to transfer of property matters immune from any sort of circumvention by actions of parties outside the court. This doctrine guarantees that outcomes of legal disputes are not undermined by interim transactions. This also contributes towards the maintenance of integrity of judicial processes by protecting the rights of the involved parties in the property transfer. This case is a landmark cornerstone in the evolution of property law. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 standing for maintaining a status quo that cannot be affected by an act of any party in a pending litigation derives its origin from the doctrine of lis pendens only as established historically in the case of Bellamy v. Sabine in 1857.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
- What is the difference between lis pendens and res judicata?
Ans: -The concept of res judicata concerns itself with more than one action whereas the concept of lis pendens concern itself with just one action. Res judicata means an already decided matter on which another litigation between same parties cannot be initiated where as lis pendens refers to a pending litigation.
- What are the exceptions to lis pendens?
Ans: – Lis pendens does not apply to a decree or order in a suit or proceeding where no transfer in contested or where the property itself is unidentifiable. It also does not apply to collusive suits.
_____________________________________________________________
