THE DOCTRINE OF LIS PENDENS IN INDIA: SCOPE, APPLICATION ANDJUDICIAL INTERPRETATION

Introduction

The term “lis pendens” is derived from Latin and can be translated as “pending litigation” or “pending suit”. It originates from the legal maxim “pendente lite nihil innovature”, which means that no new changes should be made while litigation is ongoing[1].

This doctrine aims to prevent the transfer of a specific immovable property to a third party while a legal dispute is ongoing[2]. This is because if either party sells the property in question, the third party who purchases it will also be bound by the judgement, regardless of their knowledge of the ongoing lawsuit. In this article, we will be able to critically examine the scope, judicial evolution, relevance, and application of this doctrine in India.

Origin

The doctrine of lis pendens originated from English common law and was established in the landmark case of Bellamy v. Sabine (1857)[3]. In this case, Mr. Bellamy sold an immovable property to Mr. Sabine, but a third party later contested the transaction, claiming to be the rightful owner of the property. While the lawsuit was still ongoing, Mr. Sabine transferred the property to someone else. The court applied the doctrine of lis pendens and held that the transfer was not valid because the ownership of the property was still being litigated. Justice Lord Turner stated that this doctrine is a common law and equity court doctrine, which is based on the principle that no action or suit can be effectively settled if the property in question is being disputed. In any event, the Plaintiff will be held accountable for the Defendant who alienated the property before the judgement or decree and will need to start these actions from scratch in accordance with the same course of action.

Doctrine of Lis Pendens in India

In India, the doctrine has been codified under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The section provides that the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to a lawsuit or proceeding that is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question during its pendency in any court with authority within the borders of India, excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir, or established beyond such limits by the Central Government in order to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order that may be made therein, except under the authority of the court and on the terms that it may impose[4].

For the sake of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding will be considered to begin on the date the plaint is presented or the proceeding is instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction, and it will continue until the suit or proceeding has been resolved by a final decree or order and full satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained or has become unobtainable due to the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for its execution by any currently in force law.

Conditions for Application of the Doctrine

• When there is a pending lawsuit or litigation: The most crucial prerequisite for the application of this theory is the existence of a lawsuit on the property in any court having jurisdiction. “Pendency” refers to the time frame that starts on the day the plaint is filed and lasts until the lawsuit is settled, and all parties are satisfied.
• When the subject matter is immovable property: The disputed or contested property must be immovable.
• When the suit is not collusive: “collusive” refers to any act of secretly, dishonestly, or purposefully scheming to deceive or fool another, usually for an unfair advantage. Therefore, this concept will not be used if the parties have any secret understanding among themselves[5].
• When there is a subsequent transfer of property: The court will apply the principles of the concept of lis pendens when any immovable property has been sold, mortgaged, disposed of, leased, exchanged, or in any other action that modifies the ownership status or possession of that property.[6]
• Where the court is competent: To ensure that the ruling rendered by the court is binding on the parties, it is crucial that the lawsuit be filed in a court with competent jurisdiction.

Conditions for Non-Applicability of the Doctrine

• When the intention of the parties is collusive.
• When the property in dispute is a movable property.
• When the property is unidentifiable.
• If only the transferor will be affected by the order of the court.
• When the suit is not directly related to the title of the property in dispute.

Objectives

The main reasons why this doctrine is codified under our Indian law are the following:

• By putting a bar on the parties of the litigation to further sell the property under dispute, the statute ensures that it averts abuse and protects the legal process.
• If either of the parties transfers the property to any third party, then there are chances of a new dispute arising with the third party who bought the property. This doctrine puts an end to this situation and thus avoids endless litigation.
• To protect the aggrieved party[7].

Status of the Third Party

While an immovable property is under litigation and the property is further transferred to a third party, the following will be its legal status towards the property:

• Just as the legal maxim “Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet” says that “no one gives what they do not have”, the third party only gets the title which the transferor has. It states that a seller cannot pass a better title to goods or property than they possess, protecting the original owner’s rights when a purchaser buys from a non-owner.
• Though the transfer is not illegal, the third party is bound by the judgement of the competent court. If the judgement is pronounced in favour of the other party, the third party has to adhere to it.
• The third party may be allowed to become a party of the suit in order to protect his rights.
• If the judgement is in favour of the transferor, the title of the third party will be safe, but if the judgement is in favour of the other party, then the third party not only loses this title over the property but also may lose the investment.[8]

Judicial Pronouncements

Kedar Nath Lal v Genesh Ram

Facts:

The ownership of a property that had been the subject of a mortgage transaction between a cooperative society and Ram Narain Ram was in dispute. Ram Narain Ram was granted a registered release deed by the Society. The sum of Rs. 500 was not paid, despite the agreement that it would be. A competent authority was in the midst of mortgage award proceedings pertaining to the property. Devendra Nath obtained the property through a later transfer while these processes were pending. This latter acquisition was contested by Kedar Nath Lal and others, who argued that it could not defeat their rights because it was impacted by the current dispute.

Issues:

1. Whether the cooperative Society’s release deed was an absolute transfer or one that required payment of Rs. 500.
2. Whether the transfer was made in favour of Devendra Nath while the proceedings were pending qualified under the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
3. If the mortgage proceedings were legitimate, what impact did they have on further property transfers?

Judgement:

The Supreme Court ruled that the payment of Rs. 500 was not a prerequisite for the release deed’s execution and that it was absolute and binding. As a result, even though there was no payment, the transfer went into effect right away. The court further concluded that the notion of lis pendens applied, which means that any transfer performed while a lawsuit is pending is not null and void but is nevertheless subject to the rights that the court finally determines. The subsequent transfer in favour of Devendra Nath could not supersede the rights of the litigation’s participants because the mortgage proceedings were determined to be legitimate and not collusive. As a result, the court granted the appeal, overturned the High Court’s ruling, and decided in favour of Kedar Nath Lal and others, supporting that the parties’ rights over any such transfers are governed by the litigation[9].

Tek Chand and Others v Deep Chand and Others

Facts:

The disagreement started with a deal between Deep Chand and Kare to sell land in the Faridabad District. Deep Chand had paid a significant amount of the consideration and had signed a legitimate contract with Kare. But Kare did not carry out the sale deed. Rather, he asserted that he was not the real owner of the land and included his children, who later acquired ownership rights through several transactions, including a court order and a family settlement. It was claimed that these transactions were collusive and meant to undermine Deep Chand’s contractual rights. A lawsuit for a particular performance was filed by Deep Chand. The trial court accepted Kare’s children’s claim and dismissed the lawsuit. The appellate court overturned the decision. This ruling, concluding that there was collusion in the transactions. The Supreme Court heard an appeal after the High Court upheld this opinion.

Issues:

1. Whether Deep Chand was entitled to particular performance under the terms of the sale agreement between Kare and Deep Chand.
2. Whether Deep Chand’s previous contractual rights may be defeated by the transactions (including the family settlement and decree) in favour of Kare’s children and whether they were legitimate or collusive.
3. Whether Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882’s theory of lis pendens applied, subjecting later transfers to the resolution of the ongoing legal dispute.

Judgement:

The Supreme Court gave Deep Chand the relief of a particular performance after ruling in his favour. Given that compensation had already been paid, it concluded that Deep Chand and Kare’s agreement was sincere, legitimate, and enforceable. The Court further determined that the family settlement and decree, among other transactions involving Kare’s children, were collusive in nature and intended to negate the earlier contractual duty. As a result, these transactions were deemed legally useless. The Court also invoked the notion of lis pendens, ruling that Deep Chand’s rights could not be compromised by any rights established while the case was pending. In order to uphold those contractual duties in real estate transactions, the Supreme Court ordered that the sale deed be performed in Deep Chand’s favour cannot be compromised by dishonest or cooperative agreements[10].

Conclusion

Thus, the doctrine of lis pendens makes sure that the transfer of property when under litigation does not affect the result of ongoing legal suits. It further preserves court authority, avoiding endless litigation, and protecting the rights of parties to a lawsuit.
Despite its significance, the doctrine has many drawbacks. Its rigid application can be adverse to innocent and genuine buyers who might not be aware of the ongoing proceedings. Third parties usually face ambiguity and monetary uncertainties.

Therefore, an equitable approach might be needed even though the theory of lis pendens is still an important instrument for maintaining judicial integrity. In a progressively sophisticated legal environment, the doctrine must try balancing between protecting the rights of the parties and also safeguarding litigating parties and guaranteeing justice to innocent third parties.

Reference(S):

[1] Doctrine of lis pendens, Drishti Judiciary (Apr 28, 2026), available at https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/doctrines/transfer-of-property-act-doct/doctrine-of-lis-pendens

[2] Shambhu Nath Singh Sethwal, presentation on doctrine of lis pendens,S3WaaS (Apr 29, 2026), available at https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s37a68443f5c80d181c42967cd71612af1/uploads/2025/07/20250715859115205.pdf

[3] Bellamy v Sabine  (1857) 1 De G & J 566. 

[4] The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, No. 4 of 1882, s 52 (India).

[5]  Manas shrivastava, Doctrine of Lis Pendens under the Transfer of Property Act 1882

 Aashayein Judiciary(Apr 29, 2026), available at https://www.alec.co.in/show-blog-page/doctrine-of-lis-pendens-under-the-transfer-of-property-act-1882

[6] Swetha A & R. Preethi, Lis Pendens’ implication and it’s exceptions in contemporary legal structure – a critical analysis, Institute of Legal Education (Apr 29, 2026), available at https://pllr.iledu.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/V2I13.pdf

[7] Shambhu Nath Singh Sethwal, supra note 2

[8] TPA Section 52 lis pendens, vidhi Judicial academy (Apr 30, 2026), available at https://vidhijudicial.com/tpa-section52-lis-pendens

.html#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20in%20a%20suit,rights%20established%20under%20the%20decree.

[9] Kedar Nath v Ganesh Ram (1970) AIR 1717, 1970 SCR (2) 204

[10] Tek Chand & Ors vs Deep Chand & Ors 2001 (4) SCC 488