A recent ruling by the Supreme Court has shed light on a nuanced aspect of property law, emphasizing the enduring relevance of the Lis Pendens doctrine even in contexts where the Transfer of Property Act’s Section 52 might not be directly applicable.
The bench, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PB Varale, elucidated that the absence of strict applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1881, does not negate the principles underlying Lis Pendens. These principles, rooted in justice, equity, and good conscience, retain their potency regardless of statutory provisions.
Referencing the case of Shivshankara and Another v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261, the Court underscored the established precedent that in scenarios where the TP Act is not strictly applicable, equitable principles akin to those enshrined in Section 52 find relevance.
The genesis of the present case lies in the State of Punjab, wherein an agreement to sell was forged between the appellant and respondent no.3. Upon apprehending the imminent alienation of the subject property by respondent no.3, the appellant sought recourse through a permanent injunction from the trial court.
Despite the injunction restraining respondent no.3 from alienating the property, the latter proceeded with the transfer, sparking a legal contention. Respondent no.3 argued that the Lis Pendens doctrine, encapsulated in Section 52 of the TPA, did not apply due to the Act’s non-applicability in certain states, including Punjab.
Lis Pendens, a legal doctrine designed to maintain status quo during pending litigation, aims to forestall multiple proceedings and uphold equitable principles. The Court clarified that the doctrine’s application commences from the date of filing the suit and extends until the issuance and realization of a final decree.
Crucially, the Court noted that the appellant had initiated the suit for a permanent injunction on 21.07.2003, predating respondent no.3’s alienation of the property on 28.07.2003. Consequently, the subsequent alienation could not prejudice the appellant’s interests, given the enforceability of the injunction.
In a decisive verdict, the Court invalidated the transactions facilitated by respondent no.3, emphasizing the legal invalidity of the release deed and subsequent sale deed executed during the operation of the temporary injunction. The respondents were deemed bound by the Lis Pendens doctrine, precluding them from claiming protection as bona fide purchasers.
In light of the foregoing, the Court allowed the appeal and directed respondent no.3 to honor the contractual obligations with the appellant within a stipulated timeframe, effectively reinstating the appellant’s entitlements.
This landmark ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding equitable principles in property disputes, transcending statutory limitations to deliver justice founded on fairness and conscience.
