2021 SCMR 686
Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto---Scope---Suit filed by plaintiff seeking specific performance of purported agreement to sell after property already sold by owner to a third party---In such circumstances the sale to the third party could not be defeated by placing reliance on S. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 since transfer of property was not done when the suit was pending, but had already taken place---Moreover, the plaint did not state, nor was it established, that the sale to the third party was fraudulent or collusive
2002 SCMR 2003
Transfer of Property Act 1882 ----S.52---Lis pendens, principle of---Applicability---Transfer of Property during litigation---Effect---Transfer made pendente lite would not ipso facto become void, rather such transfer could not affect right of other parties in suit---Sale because of lis pendens would not be regarded as nullity, either same was voluntary or involuntary.
Transfer of Property Act 1882 ----Ss. 41 & 52---Transfer of Property during litigation---Bona fide purchaser for value, right of---Lis pendens, principle of---Applicability---Rights of parties in property subject-matter of litigation were protected by S.52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Neither party could deal with property under litigation in a manner to affect the right of his opponent---Principle of lis pendens is applicable to transfer made pendente lite, unless subsequent purchaser established that he was a transferee for value and had paid price in god faith without notice of interest of a third party---Bona fide purchaser for value was protected by S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
2014 SCMR 33
Lis pendens , principle of---Applicability and exception--- Consent decree obtained by collusion---Fraudulent transfer---Scope---Defendant claimed to have purchased suit land from vendor vide agreement to sell dated 1-12-1969 and filed a suit for specific performance for such purpose, which was decreed by way of a consent decree dated 29-4-1972 after defendant and vendor reached an agreement---Plaintiffs (appellants) filed a declaratory suit contending that in fact they had purchased the suit land from the vendor vide registered sale deed dated 17-5-1971; that consent decree obtained by defendant was collusive and fraudulent, and that defendant had not impleaded them in his suit---Suit of plaintiffs was decreed by Trial Court, which decree was upheld by First Appellate Court---High Court, however, reversed concurrent judgments of courts below and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit on the basis that defendant was bona fide purchaser for consideration prior in time; that plaintiffs had purchased suit land during pendency of suit filed by defendant and transaction of sale with the plaintiffs was hit by the principle of lis pendens enshrined in S. 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Plea of plaintiffs was that principle of lis pendens would not be applicable in the present case as the suit and decree so obtained by defendant were collusive---Validity---Suit land was sold to plaintiffs vide registered sale deed dated 17-5-1971, and said transaction was duly reflected in the revenue record and possession of suit land was also delivered to the plaintiffs on the spot by revenue officer---At the time of consent decree obtained by defendant, dated 29-4-1972, the vendor was divested of his ownership qua suit land as the land already stood transferred to the plaintiffs vide registered sale deed dated 17-5-1971, thus vendor was left with no title on the date of consent decree to have consented to sell the suit land---Regarding applicability of principle of lis pendens , defendant failed to prove that plaintiffs had either knowledge of the agreement to sell between the defendant and vendor or that he was a bona fide purchaser---Consent decree obtained by defendant was collusive and principle of lis pendens was not attracted in the present case---High Court also did not advert to the exception to the principle of lis pendens provided in S. 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and failed to notice that plaintiffs had no notice either of the agreement to sell between defendant and vendor, or the pendency of the earlier suit filed by defendant, which culminated into a consent decree---Exception to the principle of lis pendens provided in S. 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was fully attracted in the present case as all its ingredients were satisfied, namely that there was documentary evidence to show that transfer of suit land was for consideration; that such transfer was made by an ostensible owner (i.e. vendor), and that plaintiffs had no knowledge of any prior agreement qua suit land--- Plaintiffs were not even impleaded as a party by the defendant in his suit despite the fact that they had purchased suit land vide registered sale deed---Consent decree vide which vendor consented to selling suit land to defendant was on the face of it a fraudulent transfer also within the meaning of S. 53 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as suit land had already been transferred by vendor in the name of plaintiffs when he agreed to the consent decree---Such fraudulent transfer was voidable at the option of plaintiffs---Consent decree was an attempt to defeat the interest already acquired by the plaintiffs in the suit land---Impugned judgment of High court was set aside in circumstances and that of Trial Court was restored
PLD 2015 SC 187
Lis pendens , principle of---Applicability---Subsequent transferee could not sustain his transfer (e.g. the sale) if he had purchased the property during the pendency of the suit---Subsequent transferee was bound by the outcome of the suit, obviously that shall be so if the case was decided against the transferor from whom he was purchasing the property or against the transferee if he was a party to the case, but if the case was decided in his favour, there shall be no question about the application of the rule of lis pendens .
2014 SCMR 33
Lis pendens , principle of---Exception to the principle of lis pendens ---Essential ingredients---Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provided an exception to the principle of lis pendens ---Essential ingredients for invoking said exception were that transferor was the ostensible owner (of the property); that such transfer was made by consent of the real owner; that such transfer was for a consideration, and that the transferee while acting in good faith had taken reasonable care before entering into the transaction
2013 SCMR 551
Lis pendens , principle of---Applicability---Scope---Suit relating to disputed property filed before its alleged purchase---Suit for specific performance qua disputed property filed by plaintiff/respondent was decreed by Trial Court, whereafter it was affirmed by the Appellate Court and defendant's appeal was dismissed---Contention of defendant was that he was bona fide purchaser without notice and suit for specific performance could not have been decreed---Validity---Defendant had not denied that suit for specific performance about disputed property was filed in the year 1992, whereas the defendant had allegedly purchased the said property in the year 1993---Defendant's case was hit by the principle of lis pendens ---Judgments and decrees passed by courts below were unexceptionable---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances and leave was refused
2012 SCMR 983
Principle of lis pendens unambiguously prescribes that the rights of the party to the suit, who ultimately succeeds in the matter are not affected in any manner whatsoever on account of the alienation, and the transferee of the property shall acquire the title to the property subject to the final outcome of the lis---In view of the rule/doctrine of lis pendens , a transferee of the suit property, even if a bona fide purchaser, without notice of the pendency of suit, shall be bound by the result of the suit stricto sensu in all respects, as his transferor would be bound---Transferee therefore does not acquire any legal title free from the clog of his unsuccessful transferor, in whose shoes he steps in for all intents and purposes and has to swim and sink with his predecessor in interest
PLD 2011 SC 905
Rule of lis pendens ---Virtual and true object---Transferee of the suit property, even the purchaser for value, without notice of the pendency of suit, who in the ordinary judicial parlance is known as a bona fide purchaser, in view of the rule/doctrine of lis pendens shall be bound by the result of the suit stricto sensu in all respects, as his transferor would be bound---Transferee, therefore, does not acquire any legal title free from the clog of his unsuccessful transferor, in whose shoes he steps in for all intents and purposes and has to swim and sink with his predecessor in interest---Rule of lis pendens shall also be duly attracted and applicable during the period of limitation provided for an appeal or revision etc. to challenge a decree/order-If therefore an alienation of a suit property has been made by a party to the lis, who succeeds at one stage (such as trial), but the transfer is during the period of limitation available to the other (unsuccessful) party, to challenge that decision and ultimately the decree/order is over turned in its further challenge, such alienation made shall also be hit and shall be subject to the rule of lis pendens ---Principles
2012 SCMR 983
Lis pendens , principle of---Ingredients---Conditions precedent to attract the principles of lis pendens with respect to S.52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, are, the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a court of law; the court must have jurisdiction over the person or property; the property must be specifically described and should be affected by the termination of the suit or proceedings; the right to the said property is directly and specifically in question in any suit or proceedings; the alienation of such immovable property without the permission or order of the court, and the alienation should be during the pendency of any such suit or proceedings
2006 SCMR 1689
Principle of lis pendens --- Applicability --- Execution of agreement by one co-sharer/vendor agreeing to obtain power of attorney from other co-sharers---Non-execution of. power of attorney by other co-sharers in favour of vendor/co-sharer---Registered sale in favour of "K" by other co-sharers of their shares in land---Suit by vendee of such agreement against all co-sharers for its specific performance---Claim by "K" to have purchased land for valuable consideration and without notice of suit agreement---Written statement by other co-sharers conceding execution of suit agreement---Validity---Other co-sharers having filed conceding written statement were not party to suit agreement---Other co-sharers had transferred land in favour of "K" before filing of suit, which sale would not be hit by principle of lis pendens ---Subsequent acknowledgment of suit agreement by other co-sharers would not affect their sale in favour of "K" for his being a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration from real owners without any defect in their title
2021 CLC 1319
Transfer / sale of immoveable property while civil litigation in respect thereof was pending --- Scope--- Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was founded on maxim "pendente lite nihil innovetur"; which meant that "pending litigation nothing new should be introduced"---Rule of lis Pendens and principle of res judicata had affinity as both aimed at bringing end to litigation and giving finality to court order, once a matter had been conclusively determined
2022 YLR 46
Lis Pendens -Principle---Whoever acquires property during the pendency of action is held bound by the judgment that may be made against the person from whom he derived his title even though such a purchaser was not party to the action as had no notice of the pending litigation
2021 CLC 87
Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto---Scope---Where alienation of property is made by a party to the lis during the pendency of the suit, the transferee does not acquire any title free from clog of his unsuccessful transferor in whose shoes he stepped and for all intents and purposes, he shall have to swim and sink with his predecessor-in-interest and that the transferee of the suit even if for value and without notice who in ordinary judicial parlance is known as bona fide purchaser, in view of the rule/doctrine of lis Pendens , shall be bound by the result of suit stricto sensu in all respects as the transferor will be bound
2019 YLR 805
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.52---Lis Pendens , principle of---Applicability---Specific performance of agreement to sell executed by Cooperative Society in favour of petitioner stood proved upto the Supreme Court---Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation, during pendency of proceedings between petitioner and Cooperative Society, sold the property to respondent--- Validity--- Litigation regarding property in question was very much in the knowledge of the Board, when the property was sold through negotiation, therefore, principle of lis Pendens was fully applicable---Sale deed executed in favour of respondent by the Board and cancellation of "No Objection Certificate" issued and order passed by the Board in favour of respondent was set aside by the High Court with directions that Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation to execute sale deed of property in question in favour of petitioner after receiving remaining consideration amount
2017 YLR 2173
Lis Pendens , doctrine of---Applicability---Suit land was further transferred during the pendency of suit---Suit was decreed concurrently--- Validity--- Transferee purchased the suit land during pendency of civil suit---Rule of lis Pendens was applicable in the case---Transferee could not bring on record that precautionary measures were taken by him before purchasing the land in question---Mere inquiring from the revenue officials was not sufficient to prove the stance of bona fide purchaser for consideration without notice---Transferee who purchased the suit land during pendency of suit was not entitled to defend the suit independently---Transferee had failed to prove his stance of bona fide purchaser---Transaction during pendency of suit was subject to final outcome of the suit---Transferee had to swim and sink with his original vendor---Agreement to sell had been proved by the plaintiff---No illegality had been pointed out in the findings recorded by the Courts below while decreeing the suit---Second appeal was dismissed in limine
2017 MLD 1600
Rule of lis Pendens would apply till the final adjudication which was given in an appeal or revision at the final level of judicial hierarchy
2017 CLC 1452
Lis Pendens , principle of---Scope---Transaction entered during pendency of proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction would be inconsequential irrespective of the fact that any subsequent court decree had been passed on the basis thereof or not
0 Comments