Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Transactions During the Pendency of Litigation Are Generally Voidable and Subject to Final Decree – Supreme Court Upholds Doctrine of Lis Pendens

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reinforced the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which mandates that any transfer of property during the pendency of litigation is generally voidable and contingent on the outcome of the case.

The matter pertains to an appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision that reversed lower courts’ findings and dismissed a suit for specific performance regarding a property transaction between Chander Bhan (the appellant, represented posthumously through Sher Singh) and Mukhtiar Singh along with others (respondents). The contention revolved around whether the transactions conducted during the pendency of an injunction suit were valid and whether the subsequent purchasers could be considered bonafide under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Doctrine of Lis Pendens: The Supreme Court highlighted that transactions executed after the imposition of a temporary injunction fall squarely within the ambit of lis pendens, rendering any subsequent transactions voidable. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia noted, “the integrity of judicial processes must be upheld, and litigants cannot undermine it through subsequent transactions.”

Status of Bonafide Purchasers: In scrutinizing the High Court’s assessment that respondents 1 and 2 were bonafide purchasers, the Supreme Court underscored that such a status is untenable when the purchase violates established principles of lis pendens. “Being unaware of litigation does not confer bona fide status to purchasers if the transaction itself is mired in legal proceedings,” Justice Dhulia remarked.

Impact of the Temporary Injunction: The apex court criticized the High Court’s interpretation and emphasized that the temporary injunction was effective from the filing date of the suit, thereby impacting all subsequent transactions.

Adverse Inference Against Respondents: The Supreme Court also supported the lower court’s decision to draw an adverse inference against respondents 3 and 4, who refrained from testifying, reinforcing the importance of direct involvement in the legal process.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The decree for specific performance initially issued by the trial court was reinstated, compelling respondent no. 3 to complete the sale agreement in favor of the appellant.

Date of Decision: May 3, 2024

Chander Bhan (D) Through LR Sher Singh vs. Mukhtiar Singh & Ors

Similar News