This article is about the theory and concept of education in India, and the Privy Council has resolved the issue in different ways and in different procedures.
Lis Pendens is inherently pending litigation and is defined in Article 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. This is expressed in the extreme dependence on innovation, which means that nothing new should be introduced during the dispute.
The theory that is explained in the main cause of Balmy v Sabin, where Turner LJ said:
I think it is clear that the common principle is impossible for a lawsuit or law enforcement to be successfully filed. In any event, if the separation process were to be used and dealt with, the applicant would be responsible to the defendant who was dismissed before the judgment or decree and would cause him to return to work and he should be defeated by the same approach/same proceedings.
In simple words, when the title of a property is in question before the court of competent jurisdiction, such property should not be transferred by way of sale or gift or lease or mortgage. If transferred such transfer is invalid and the transferee has no claim.
Based on the maxim, this saying is a rule necessary for the final decision and also based on the fact that it would be impossible to sue for a successful outcome if the separation is allowed while the process is suspended.
The basis of this trust is a very good kind of information, rather than false or creative. This principle can be dismissed because the current dispute is considered to be a constructive dismissal because of the conflict property. Therefore, in the event of a dispute, anyone excluding the court from dealing with this product should be excluded. The right way, though, is to depend on "need".
The basic material of the Lis Pendens theory
1. A dispute should be pending before the competent court.
2. The suit must belong to a certain immovable property on the right.
3. The suit shouldn't be collusive.
4. The property should not be transferred or otherwise sold.
5. Continue with both parties.
6. This can compromise a party's authority.
7. Until the case is finally resolved.
The explanation for Basic Material
1. The process begins on the date the complaint is made and continues until a final decision or order is made to resolve the matter. This means that the case is considered pending even if there is an opportunity to appeal the process or if the process has not yet completed.
2. The principle applies only in the case of immovable assets and not where the subject matter is movable property. The litigant must include a specific right in real estate, such as a dispute regarding title, possession or right of secessionist, etc. The principle applies to sale, specific performance of a contract, mortgage suit, rest, pre-emption, charges made by Hindu widow on Hindu joint family property, etc. and does not apply to suits relating to loans, rent, accounts. (House tax), etc.
3. The term collusive suit denotes a lawsuit filed with conspiracy. This is a splash suit. Here, the parties to the suit enter into an agreement with the intention of defeating the rights of the transferee. The suit presented or pending should be genuine.
4. The term transfer includes total and partial transfer. This principle applies to the sale, the concession under the concession, the mortgage, etc. Also includes partition cases.
5. The indictment consists of persons who file an application or a petition, i.e the plaintiff, and against whom an application for relief is made, i.e. the accused or his representative in the event of death. The transfer made by a person before the party remains unaffected by the principle of pending dependency
6. Affecting another’s right.
7. This implies that there is no chance of any appeal against the decision of the court in that particular case nor execution of the decree is pending. Once the case is settled, the transfer will not attract Section 52 because the principal component of the doctrine is the pendency of the suit and the pendency of the suit ceases as soon as the case is settled.
Doctrine in India
The main case of this theory in India is Fayyaz Hussain Khan v. Prag Narian, in which the Privy Councilor quoted Turner, LJ, and Lord Cranworth with permission to observe the Bellamy case, and Lis Pendens' question in many other cases in the country were involved.
The rule, it will be obvious, is not based on the doctrine of notice but on expediency, i.e. the necessity for final adjudication.
In National Textile Corporation (U.P) Ltd. Kanpur vs. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. And others, it was held that section 52 enacts the doctrine of Lis pendens. It prohibits transfers pending litigation to deal with other elements provided that the conditions set out in this section are met. Transferred or otherwise sold property in accordance with section 52, T.P.A. The law does not authorize execution by the sub-registrar or before its registration. Likewise, the execution and transfer of ownership and ownership. The burden is on the party, who relies on the effect of section 52 and asks Lis Pendens to prove that his action was brought before the execution of the receiver, which is his indictment.
As observed by Grove, J. in Campbell vs Strangeways, Did the incidents in question happen earlier? Legal proceedings are considered as soon as possible when they are initiated.
The section provides that it is open to the court to permit any party to the suit to transfer the property to on terms which it may think fit to impose.
In Amarnath v. Deputy Board of Directors, it has been found that a party is identified as a party to the action if the decision or decision is likely to affect that party's party and the decision is binding on it. . Thus A, B, C are brothers; C lives in a distant city while A and B live together. You file a partition complaint and inform neither C nor his father X.
The Doctrine of Lis Pendens is not applicable in the following cases.
1) Where transfer takes place with the consent of the court.
2) Where the transfer relates to money disputes.
3) Where the transfer is for revenue sales.
Res judicata and Lis Pendens
The rule of res judicata prevents the owner from dealing Lis Pendens and once a judgement is pronounced by a competent court in regard to the subject matter of the suit in which the doctrine of Lis Pendens applies, the decision is res judicata and binds not the only party to the suit but also the transferee Pendente Lite.
Lis pendens is based on justice, clear conscience?
T. P. Act set out in section 52 that actions are in accordance with justice, good conscience because :
1) They are based on a fair and just basis that it is impossible to complete a trial or prosecution if there can be a separation.
2) The buyer's label is linked by a light decree as well as by a party to the complaint. T. P. The principle of falsehood stated in article 52. The law is a principle of public order in which no one believes or is believed.
3) The principle of section 52 is that the party acquired during the dispute is exempt from the knowledge of the title acquired. The mere suspension of a proceeding does not prevent any party from dealing with the property that is the subject of the proceeding.
4) The section only stipulates that the separation must not in any way affect the rights of the other party under a decree that can be issued in law enforcement unless the property has been obtained with the court's approval.
Amity Law School, Noida
(Images used for representative purpose only)