Open Access Research Article
DOCTRINE OF LIS PENDENS: AN AID OR A HINDRANCE IN PENDING SUITS?
Published Paper
Article Details
DOCTRINE OF LIS
PENDENS: AN AID OR A HINDRANCE IN PENDING SUITS?
AUTHORED
BY - MEDHA HEBBAR
TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
(A State University established by State Act of 2012)
TIRUCHIRAPALLI
TAMIL NADU- 620 009
ABSTRACT
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
codifies the doctrine of Lis Pendens. This section is based on the maxim
"ut lite pendente nihil innovetur," which states that nothing new
must be brought up in a case that is already in progress. As a result, neither
party to the dispute should sell or otherwise deal with the property at issue
while the lawsuit or action is pending. The fundamental concepts of this theory
are consistent with the principles of equity, good conscience, or justice as
they are based on the equitable and just premise that it will be impossible to
successfully conclude an action or suit if alienations are allowed to prevail.
This concept appears to serve the purpose, however, is that really the case?
This paper focuses upon the doctrine of Lis
Pendens in its current nature and form while attempting to uncover certain
inconsistencies in relation to other doctrines. Further, certain trends and
developments in the law of Lis Pendens have been analysed.
The Transfer of Property Act came into existence in the
year 1882 and quite a few sections of the Act find their basis in equitable
principles. Sections 52 of the Act is one such sections and reads as follows: “Transfer of Property pending suit relating thereto.” It is known
that upon transfer of some property, along with the right to ownership there
also exists the right to dispose or transfer property as per the likes of the
said owner. However, this particular right is not absolute in nature and brings
along certain exceptions. One such exception can be found in Section 52 of the
Transfer of Property Act. As per this section, alienation of property is not
allowed when a dispute regarding the rights of the concerned property is
pending in a competent court of law. The notion reflected in this particular
section is derived from the classic doctrine of Lis Pendens. It essentially refers to ‘pending litigation’ and is
derived form a common law principle “utlite
pendente nihil innovetur” which translates to “during pendency of
litigation, nothing new interest should be introduced or created in respect of
the property.”[1]
Although
one was not a party to the dispute and was not heard in it, any person
that acquires an interest in the subject property pendente lite through a
party litigant is usually obligated by the judgement rendered in the case.[2]
The general requirements for applying the rule as well as the rule itself are
well established. Consequently, there cannot be a Lis Pendens where there is no
property that could be affected by the judgement or when the nature of the
property makes it against public policy to enforce the rule, as in the case of
negotiable instruments that are taken before maturity.[3]
The general logic
behind this provision is that no new change must be introduced in the property
so long as there is a pedente-lite
that may affect the title of the property. This would also affect the rights of
the parties concerned and will subsequently affect the court’s decision in
favour of the parties originally concerned.
However, it may be
observed the basis of the doctrine itself, is controversial in nature. One line
of reasoning states that the doctrine is equitable and finds its basis in
constructive notice,[4]
and another line states that the doctrine finds its basis in the notion Res Judicata.[5]
It is thus derived that there are confusions that arise even in the
applicability of this doctrine to cases.
A. Scope and Objective
This paper shall
examine the principles of application of the doctrine of Lis Pendens as present
in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 and shall also critically
examine the development and jurisprudence of the same. While exploring the
situations when this doctrine would apply, the paper shall also aim at arriving
at a conclusion whether the doctrine is an aid or hindrance to pending suits in
general.
B. Research Problem
The Doctrine of Lis
Pendens in its current nature and form has certain inconsistencies in relation
to other doctrines and this proves to be a hindrance in pending suits.
1.1.
Research
Questions
2.
What are some drawbacks in the
doctrine of Lis Pendens and whether they can be solved?
3.
What are the current trends and
developments in the law of Lis Pendens, and what implications do they have for
the future of this doctrine?
4.
Whether the doctrine is
consistent with other legal doctrines, such as Res Judicata and Forum Non
Conveniens?
1.2.
Research
Objectives
1.
To explore the underlying
principles as well as the benefits and drawbacks of the doctrine of Lis Pendens.
2.
To focus on the consistency of
the doctrine of Lis Pendens with other doctrines.
3.
To focus on the trends and
developments of the doctrine find out whether it poses a hindrance to pending
suits.
1.3.
Hypotheses
Lis Pendens is a
doctrine that has been established to promote welfare and safety of persons
affected by alienation of property during proceedings, however, this effect has
been lost in implementation.
2. Principles of the Doctrine of Lis
Pendens
The Latin
proverb "pendente lite nihil innovature," which means "during
pendency of litigation, nothing new interest should be introduced or created in
respect of the property," serves as the foundation for the doctrine of Lis
Pendens. In accordance with Section 52
of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which codifies the concept of Lis
Pendens, no transfer of an immovable property can take place while a suit
directly involving those rights exists before a court of competent jurisdiction
without the court's approval. Nevertheless, if a property is transferred while
a lawsuit is pending without the court's consent, the buyer of that property is
obligated by any judgement that may be rendered in the case[6].
Like numerous provisions in the Transfer of Property Act, this particular
section is based on equity and good conscience and the main objective of its
existence is protection of the parties involved in the litigation form
alienation of the property by the opponent while the case is still being heard.
But, the main
driving force of this particular section is the fact that right over immovable
property be directly as well as specifically in question[7],
just the mentioning of an immovable property in a plaint shall not suffice and
is not enough to attract applicability of this section[8].
The immovable property must be the object of the dispute and the rights in
respect of the same must be directly and substantially in question. If these
conditions have been sufficed, that property shall not be transferred while the
suit is pending.
However, it
is of utmost importance that the suit must be bona fide and the doctrine of Lis
Pendens shall not apply if there exists mala fide intent or collusion[9].
The suit has to be further filed in a court possessing competent jurisdiction,
be it pecuniary or territorial, and in case the court does not possess said
jurisdiction, Lis Pendens cannot be applied.
2.1. Essential Conditions for
the Doctrine of ‘Lis Pendens’
Mere
existence of a pending suit relating to property is not sufficient to apply the
doctrine. there exist certain other conditions that must be met so as to
qualify for the application of the doctrine. In the case of Dev Raj Dogra v.
Gyan Chand Jain[10],
three essential conditions for application have been laid down. They are-
“1) A suit or a proceeding in which
any right to immovable property must be directly and specifically in question,
must be pending;
2) The suit or the proceeding shall
not be a collusive one;
3) Such property during the pendency
of such a suit or proceeding cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by
any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the right of any other
party thereto under any decree or order which may be passed therein except
under the authority of Court. In other words, any transfer of such property or
any dealing with such property during the pendency of the suit is prohibited
except under the authority of Court, if such transfer or otherwise dealing with
the property by any party to the suit or proceeding affects the right of any
other party to the suit or proceeding under any order or decree which may be
passed in the said suit or proceeding.”[11]
Thus, upon drawing inference from the
above case, the conditions are-
1. A pending suit or proceeding has
to exist
2. This suit or proceeding must be in
a court exercising competent jurisdiction
3. There must be specific involvement
of a right to immovable property
4. This suit or proceeding shall not
be collusive in nature
5. The property under dispute is
required to be transferred or dealt with by any party to the suit
6. This transfer of property must
affect the rights of the other party of the suit.[12]
2.2. Critical Evaluation of
the Objective of the Doctrine
1. Position of transfer
The main aim of this particular
section is to essentially prohibit certain actions and thus, is prohibitive in
nature. Section 52 uses the phrase “the property cannot be transferred or
otherwise dealt with” Transfer pendente
lite is, however, not void either[13].
It is only subjected to the result of that suit. This makes the transfer thus
voidable at the option of the affected party, however, except to the instance
where it may be in contradiction with the rights decreed[14].
2. Right of alienee pendente lite to be pleaded as a party to the suit
According to the majority opinion, a
transferee pendent lite may not be allowed to request impleadment in
circumstances where the transfer was impacted by the appeal's pending status
without the court's authorization and with full awareness of the matter. He may
not be able to assert rights relating the suit property that outweigh the
rights of the seller who is a party to the suit, and the court cannot use its
discretion to implead him. This is in place to ensure that anyone breaking
the law is not considered as possessing a legitimate, enforceable right, and as
a result, is not qualified to have their case decided.
3. Right of other parties as under decree
The doctrine of Lis Pendens does not
solely affect actual transfers that are the essential subject matters of the
suit, but to other dealings as well. “Any other party” refers to any other person
between whom and the party to the suit there exists an issue for decision[15],
that has scope for prejudice by the said alienation. This doctrine primarily
exists for benefitting the third party, and does not exist for the party that
is making the transfer.
4. Supreme Court recommendation
The recommendation of the Supreme
Court to the Law Commission of India and the Parliament recommended change in
law in certain terms[16]:
“It is important to refer to the
hardship, loss, anxiety and unnecessary litigation caused due to the absence of
mechanism for prospective purchasers to verify whether or not a property is
subject to any pending suit or decree or attachment. These hardships may be
reduced to a considerable extent if there is some satisfactory and reliable
method by which a prospective buyer may be able to ascertain whether a
particular suit is pending before he decides to purchase such property.”
3.
CONSISTENCY OF THE DOCTRINE OF LIS PENDENS COMPARED
AGAINST OTHER DOCTRINES
In contrast to the “theory
of notice”, which is governed by the three common law principles of justice,
equity, and good conscience, the Lis Pendens doctrine closely conforms to the “theory
of necessity”. Therefore, it is essential to making sure that justice is served
without violating the rights of either party. However, this doctrine is not the
sole existing doctrine when concerned with the topic of property. There are two
essential doctrines, Res Judicata,
and Forum Non Conveniens. In some
circumstances, the doctrine of Lis Pendens is at crossroads with these
doctrines.
3.1.
Doctrine of Lis Pendens and
Doctrine of Res Judicata
Lis Pendens as well
as Res Judicata are extremely important and basic principles of procedural law,
and property law. At first glance, they may appear to be very clear and not
subject to controversy or unambiguity. However, a closer look at these topics
as well as their application in the real world reveal that these principles are
on some occasions less self-evident as compared to the degree that they are
taken as being evident. This is largely
seen in cases when a certain interplay exists between judgements and arbitral
awards.
What is Res Judicata?
The doctrine of Res
Judicata is one of public policy and exists in order to offer a private benefit
to individual parties to a suit[17].The
primary principle finds its expression in the maxim “Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium”, and the later one in “Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa.”[18]
Essentially, Res Judicata refers to “a matter adjudicated upon or a matter on
which judgement has been pronounced.” This doctrine rests on two grounds, one
is that there is hardship caused to the individual who is to be vexed twice for
the same cause, and the second relates to public policy, as it is in the
interest of the state that there must be an end to litigation[19].
It is based on the principle
that the cause of action which would sustain the second suit cannot further
survive, it being merged in the judgment of the first. As long as the lawsuits
are still pending, the disputing parties may still fight the cause of
action. However, the decision made in that suit becomes Res Judicata once the
cause of action is integrated in a judgement properly rendered by a Court and
no longer exists.
Consonance with Lis Pendens
The doctrine of Lis Pendens is applied in cases
wherein the proceedings instituted have not been concluded and disposed of.
Similarly, it restricts a second litigation among the same parties in the same
case. As per this rule, initiation of new proceedings is not permissible while
a previous suit is still pending. This principle is deeply rooted in the
procedural rules of national legal systems[20].
It is based on the same policy rationale as Res Judicata in its role of
judicial economy, by way of prevention of costly parallel suit, of legal
security by avoiding conflict in judgements, and of protecting the defendants
by providing protection against oppressive tactics. In the case of Digambara rao Hanumanta rao Deshpande vs
Ranga rao Reghunatha rao Desai[21], it was stated that Res
Judicata shall prevail over Lis Pendens and Lis Pendens cannot be placed above
the rule of Res Judicata. Further, it was observed that similar to the law of
Res Judicata, the doctrine of Lis Pendens simply behaves as an extended
part of Res Judicata and makes the specific suit enforceable against
alienees of the parties. But in a world of expanded dispute resolution options,
only if the two principles are applied in a way that goes beyond strict
formalism will their shared primary goals of preventing costly parallel
proceedings, avoiding conflicting judgements, and protecting parties from
oppressive litigation tactics be realised.
3.1.Doctrine of Lis
Pendens and Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens
Forum Non Conveniens
and Lis Pendens are two different doctrines that the courts use in order to
exercise jurisdiction, and decide whether or not to even exercise it. In the
conflicts that involve the question of jurisdiction, a court that has competent
jurisdiction may still decline to hear the case as according to Forum Non
Conveniens or Lis Pendens. These doctrines may be differentiated based on
various features, such as the scope, procedure as well as the criteria of
application.
What is Forum Non
Conveniens?
Forum Non Conveniens
is an equitable principle which essentially bestows upon the court, the power
to withhold from exercising jurisdiction over any case of action[22].
Lis Pendens, in contrast, permits the court to stay its proceeding in case some
other case falling in the ambit of the same cause of action as well as among
the same parties, is already taken by some other court. This doctrine is
present in order to maintain a balance between the plaintiff, defendant as well
as the forum[23]. The
doctrine has been used occasionally in recent years to deny foreign plaintiffs
a forum where their primary goal in bringing the case is to take advantage of a
more advantageous law. The choice of a plaintiff for the forum is generally
given more importance and more importantly when it is their home forum. Thus, a
court must refrain from depriving a plaintiff of the forum they choose unless:
a) the facts of the case prove to be oppressive and establish vexation to the
defendant so as to establish the fact that it is out of all proportion to the convenience
of a plaintiff; or b) proceeding with a trial in the forum as chosen may not be
appropriate due to the various considerations that affect the court’s
administrative as well as legal issues.
Consonance with Lis Pendens
Both the doctrines
have different applications that essentially depend upon the residence of the
parties, the international factors (if any) and more importantly the subject
matter of the issue. The location of the defendant's residency alludes to the scope
of Forum Non Conveniens, however the whole case may have some international
components. Lis pendens, on the other hand, is used in parallel proceedings of
civil and commercial issues[24].
In these situations, the defendant's residence, the site of the accident in issue
in tort cases, or the place of the contract's performance in contract dispute
cases are used to determine the jurisdictional component. In the case of Lis
Pendens, there if hardly any protection in place if the defendant believes the
court that first seized the case is not appropriate. But, it is precisely this
particular feature that maximises the predictability, efficiency as well as
uniformity of the court[25].
On the other hand, the ability of a defendant to enable the forum of their
choice is fairly greater as under the Forum Non Conveniens. However, this is
also dependant on whether or not the defendant is able to meet the required
burden of proof.
It may be stated
that, the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens proves to be better suited in common
law countries and in countries where the primary mode of settling a dispute is
not litigation, whereas Lis Pendens is better suited in civil law countries and
other places were the primary mode of dispute settlement is litigation. Both
these doctrines do, however, aid in the obtainment of substantial justice.
4. Development
of the Doctrine of Lis Pendens
As observed from above, the wide scope and
purpose of Section 52 is to try and maintain the status quo unaffected by the
acts of anno of the parties to a particular dispute that is still pending. This
doctrine does not by default restrict the vesting of right in properties,
rather, it makes the party that purchases this property bound to the result of
the litigation[26].
Although this
doctrine restricts the transfer of any property during the suit is ongoing,
this transfer is not ipso facto illegitimate,
rather, the purchaser is bound by the outcome of the suit[27].
Development Through the
Years
·
In one of the rather important
cases with reference to Lis Pendens, Gouri Dutt Maharaj v. Sheikh Sukur
Mohammed and Ors.[28],
which is a 1948 case, stated that the broad principle mentioned in Section 52
of the Transfer of Property Act, is to maintain status quo and remain free from
the effect of any party to the suit.
·
The case mentioned above
presents an explanation to what the Section 52 entails, however, in 1972 the
case of Jayaram Mudaliar v.
Ayyaswami[29] provided an explanation to
what the law does not entail. The court stated that the section “was not
present to defeat any just and equitable claim, but only subject them to the
authority of Court”. The Supreme Court further explained that “it is evident that the doctrine, as
stated in section 52, applies not merely to actual transfers of rights which
are subject-matter of litigation but to other dealings with it by any party to
the suit or proceeding, so as to affect the right of any other party thereto.”
·
In Rajender Singh and Ors. v. Santa Singh and Ors[30],
a landmark case in the Supreme Court in 1973, it was noted that “the doctrine
of Lis Pendens was designed to counter efforts by parties to a litigation to
evade the jurisdiction of a Court, in which an issue on rights or interests in
immovable property is pending, by engaging in private dealings that could
exempt the object of litigation from the court's authority to rule on an
ongoing dispute or frustrate its decree.”
·
To further illustrate on
certain wide concepts, the case of Lov Raj Kumar v. Dr. Major Daya Shanker and Ors.[31] described certain aspects. The court in
1986, observed that
“the principles contained in Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act are in
accordance with the principle of equity, good conscience or justice, because
they rest upon an equitable and just foundation, that it will be impossible to
bring an action or suit to a successful termination if alienations are
permitted to prevail.”
·
In the year 2000, the Supreme Court in the case of Hardev
Singh v. Gurmail Singh[32] provided a rather liberal
interpretation of the section as compared to those from before. It essentially
observed that Section 52 does not declare in itself a pendente lite transfer of
a property in dispute by a purchaser as void or illegal rather, it merely makes
the purchaser bound by the outcome of the suit. The court loosened the strings of
the Section 52 that in its other judgements appear to be more restricted. This
judgement did not defeat the object of the provision, but instead, interpreted
it in a different light.
·
Lastly, in the 2010 case of T.G. Ashok Kumar v. Govindammal
& Anr.[33] The Supreme Court observed that “the
transferee's title shall not be impacted if the pendente lite transferor's
title prevails in relation to the transferred property. The transferee's
title will only be preserved in relation to that portion of the transferred
property, however, and the transfer in relation to the remaining portion of the
property that was transferred shall be invalid, and the transferee will not
have any right, title, or interest in that portion, and in contrast, if
the pendente lite transferor's title is recognised or understood only in regard
to a part of the transferred property.”
Through a gentle
perusal of some of these important cases in relation to the doctrine of Lis
Pendens, we are able to understand and observe even the court’s evolution with
regards to the interpretation of section 52 of the Act.
5. Conclusion
Along the course of
this paper, the numerous situations wherein the doctrine of Lis Pendens may or may
not apply have been analysed. One very important inference is that, the
particular suit needs to be relating to an immovable property that its concerns
itself in a direct and substantial manner with the rights. Thus, it is apparent
that the doctrine cannot be misused by anyone just through a mention of an
immovable property in the plaint. Secondly, this doctrine, in its pith and
substance places a prohibition on the transferring of property of the suit is
in pendency. However, the section does not explicitly state the consequences of
still transferring the property. This clarity has been, however, obtained by
way of judicial precedents, and the party to whom the transfer is made to,
shall merely be liable to he outcome of the suit in progress.
The section as a
whole, does not prove to be a hindrance to pending suits, as the reasoning
behind its being in place is a rather rational one. It is indeed true that, no
further progress must take place to a property that is a part of a suit in
court, as there must not be any further changes to the subject matter. However,
this does not mean that there are no hindrances in the section at all. There
are two main areas that pose as viable threats or problems.
The first issue
relates to the consonance of this doctrine as against other doctrines. In the
case of Forum Non Conveniens and Lis Pendens, the policies put forward by both
are contradictory nature, as the question arises whether to permit for
derogation from the jurisdiction as provided by the former doctrine, and the
latter provides for staying with the court as chosen primarily by the claimant.
In the case of Res Judicata and Lis Pendens, there existed a question of which
doctrine shall prevail if it comes to it, however, this is to an extent
clarified by way of judicial precedents. The second problem lies with this
doctrine being unfair to the innocent purchasers. Most of the times, these
purchasers have no knowledge of the existence of the suit and are automatically
bound by the result of it. The doctrine mainly protects the parties to the suit
and not the third parties. This situation can be tackled very easily with the
provision of a doctrine of notice, as these persons can thereafter verify the
title relating to the property.
Thus, rather than
terming the entire doctrine as causing a hindrance to the pending suits, there
merely exist certain elements in the doctrine that can be amended to further
improve the effect of the same.
6. Bibliography
Books
1.
Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd
Edition) Co. Litt. 344.
2. DR.
R.K. SINHA, TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT 199 (19th Ed., 2017).
3. DR.
R.K. SINHA, TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT 194 (19th Ed., 2017).
4. G.C.V
Subba Rao, Law of Transfer of Property, 6th
ed. (2008).
5. Mulla,
“Transfer of Property Act” 17th Ed. (2009) Robert von Moschzisker, “Res Judicata” 38(3) The
Yale Law Journal, 299 (1929).
6.
Lawrence W. Newman &
Michael Burrows, “Practice of International Litigation” 688 2nd ed. (2013).
Journal Articles
1. “The Basis of Lis Pendens”, Harvard
Law Review, 20(6), 488–489 (1907).
2. Amartya
Saha, “An Introspective Analysis on the Doctrine of Lis Pendens”, International Journal of Integrated Law
Review, 2(1) (2021).
3. August
Reinisch, “The Use and Limits of Res Judicata and Lis Pendens as Procedural
Tools to Avoid Conflicting Dispute Settlement Outcomes”, Law and Practice Of International Courts And Tribunals, 3(1) (2004).
4. Robert von Moschzisker, “Res Judicata” 38(3)
The Yale Law Journal, 299 (1929).
5. Barry
J. Rodger, “Forum Non Conveniens Post-Owusu”, 2(1), Journal of Private. International Law, 71 (2006).
6. LOUIS
F. DEL DUCA & GEORGE A. ZAPHIRIOU, “Rules for Declining to Exercise
Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters: Forum Non Conveniens, Lis
Pendens”, 42, The American Journal of
Comparative Law, 968 (1994).
Cases
1. Thompson
v. Baker, I41 U. S. 648; Mellen v. Moline, etc., Iron Works, I3I U. S. 352.
2. Warren
v. Marcy, 97 U. S. 96.
3. Wortley
v. Birkhead, 2 Ves. Sr. 57I; Murray v. Ballou, X Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 566
4.
Bellamy v. Sabine, i De G.
& J. 566; Geishaker v. Pancoast, 57 N. J. Fq. 6o.
5.
Balwant
Singh v. Buta Ram, 2009 (4) 156 PLR 52 (P&H).
6. Kedarnath
Lal v. Sheonarain Ram, AIR 1957 Pat 408.
7. R.
Siddanagouda v. B. Madvivalappa Mulimani, AIR 2002 Kant 96 at 99.
8. Dev
Raj Dogra v. Gyan Chand Jain, AIR 1981 SC 981 at 987.
9. Lockyer v. Ferryman, 519 (1877). August Reinisch, “The
Use and Limits of Res Judicata and Lis Pendens as Procedural Tools to Avoid Conflicting
Dispute Settlement Outcomes”, 3(1), Law
and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 44 (2004).
10.
Digambara Rao Hanumanta Rao Deshpande vs Ranga Rao Reghunatha Rao Desai, (1949) 51 BOMLR 623
11. Thomson
Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2013 SC 2389.
12. Darashaw
J. Vakil, “Commentaries on Transfer of Property Act” 592, 5th Ed (2017).
13. Gouri
Dutt Maharaj v. Sheikh Sukur Mohammed and Ors. AIR 1948 PC 147.
14. Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami
1972 (2) SCC 200.
15. Rajender
Singh and Ors. v. Santa Singh and Ors AIR 1973 SC 2537.
16. Lov Raj Kumar v. Dr. Major Daya Shanker
and Ors. AIR 1986 Delhi 364.
17. Hardev
Singh v. Gurmail Singh, Civil
Appeal No. 6222 of 2000.
18. T.G. Ashok Kumar v. Govindammal & Anr,
Civil Appeal No. 10325
of 2010.
[1] Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd
Edition) Co. Litt. 344.
[2] Thompson v. Baker, I41 U. S. 648;
Mellen v. Moline, etc., Iron Works, I3I U. S. 352.
[3] Warren v. Marcy, 97 U. S. 96.
[4] Wortley v. Birkhead, 2 Ves. Sr.
57I; Murray v. Ballou, X Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 566
[6] Balwant Singh v. Buta Ram, 2009
(4) 156 PLR 52 (P&H).
[7] Kedarnath Lal v. Sheonarain Ram,
AIR 1957 Pat 408.
[8] DR. R.K. SINHA, TRANSFER OF
PROPERTY ACT 199 (19th Ed., 2017).
[10]Dev Raj Dogra v. Gyan Chand Jain,
AIR 1981 SC 981 at 987.
[11] Ibid
[12] DR. R.K. SINHA, TRANSFER OF
PROPERTY ACT 194 (19th Ed., 2017).
[13] G.C.V Subba Rao, Law of Transfer of Property, 6th
ed. (2008).
[14] Ibid.
[15] Mulla, “Transfer of Property Act”
17th Ed. (2009)
[16] “Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and
Registration of Documents”, Law and Legal
Developments
[17] Robert von Moschzisker, “Res Judicata” 38(3) The
Yale Law Journal, 299 (1929).
[18] Broom, Legal Maxims, * 327 et seq.
[19] Lockyer v.
Ferryman, 519 (1877).
[20] August Reinisch, “The Use and
Limits of Res Judicata and Lis Pendens as Procedural Tools to Avoid Conflicting
Dispute Settlement Outcomes”, 3(1), Law
and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 44 (2004)
[22] Barry J. Rodger, “Forum Non
Conveniens Post-Owusu”, 2(1), Journal of
Private. International Law, 71 (2006).
[23] LOUIS F. DEL DUCA & GEORGE A.
ZAPHIRIOU, “Rules for Declining to Exercise Jurisdiction in Civil and
Commercial Matters: Forum Non Conveniens, Lis Pendens”, 42, The American Journal of Comparative Law, 968 (1994).
[24] Ibid. at 969.
[25] Lawrence W. Newman & Michael
Burrows, “Practice of International Litigation” 688 2nd ed. (2013).
[26] Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v.
Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2013 SC 2389.
[27] Darashaw J. Vakil, “Commentaries
on Transfer of Property Act” 592, 5th Ed (2017).
[28] Gouri Dutt Maharaj v. Sheikh Sukur
Mohammed and Ors. AIR 1948 PC 147.
Article Information
DOCTRINE OF LIS PENDENS: AN AID OR A HINDRANCE IN PENDING SUITS?
Authors: MEDHA HEBBAR
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/07/04
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.