Concept of ‘Doctrine of Lis Pendens’ in context of Transfer of Property Act, 1882

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.

Basic Views

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.