Essentials of Doctrine of Lis Pendens

Because the theory is based on necessity, it makes no difference whether the transferee had a
notice of cases pending in court or not. Even if the transferee has no actual or constructive
knowledge of the ongoing litigation, he is obligated by the court's order.1 The suit's pendency
begins on the date the plaint is filed in court and ends on the date the final decree is issued by
the court, as stated in the section 52 explanation.
Following are the essentials of Doctrine of Lis Pendens as described in section 52:

1. A lawsuit or procedure must be pending.

2. The litigation or procedure must be underway in a court with jurisdiction to hear it.
3. The suit/proceeding involves a right to immovable property, either directly or
indirectly.
4. Any party to the litigation may transfer or deal with the disputed immovable property.
5. The rights of the other party(s) participating in the suit/proceeding are affected by
such transfer/dealing.
Property can be transferred by the act of the parties or by operation of law. Involuntary
transfers are those that occur by operation of law. Previously, there was some debate
regarding whether the law of lis pendens applied to involuntary transfers. The Privy Council
resolved the issue in the case of Nilkant v. Suresh Chander2, and the theory is now applicable
to both types of transfers. Furthermore, in Samarendra NathSinha v. Krishna Kumar Nag3, the
Supreme Court noted that, while section 52 does not precisely apply to involuntary
alienations, such as court sales, it is widely recognised that the law of lis pendens applies to
such transfers.  stated that although section 52 does not strictly apply to involuntary
alienations, for example court sales, but it is well established that the doctrine of lis pendens
applies to such transfers.
The transferee is obligated by the court's ruling after all of the prerequisites are met. If the
court rules in favour of the person transferring the property in question (transferor), the
person to whom the property is transferred (transferee) receives all rights associated with that
transfer. If the judgement is against the transferor, the transferee has no rights since the
transferor no longer has the right to transfer the property. It should be emphasised, however,
that Section 52 does not invalidate any transfer, but rather subjects it to the rights of the
parties involved in the complaint. The principle underpinning section 52, according to Gouri
Dutt Maharaj v. Sheikh Sukur Mohammed& Ors.4, is to protect the status quo.

conclusion

1
RappelAngusthi v. Gopalan, AIR 1970 Ker. 188.
2
(1885) 12 Cal. 414; Motilal v. Karrabulam, (1897) 25 Cal. 179.
3
AIR 1967 SC 1440.
4
AIR 1948 PC 147.
In conclusion, the theory of lis pendens is an important legal principle that plays an important
part in the administration of justice. This approach is intended to avoid several lawsuits,
avoid inconsistent judgements, and safeguard the interests of all parties engaged in a legal
issue. We investigated the history, development, and implementation of this concept in
various jurisdictions through this research. We also reviewed the problems and criticisms
levelled at the theory, including the possibility of abuse by parties wishing to prolong or
obstruct conflict settlement. Overall, this study emphasises the relevance of the lis pendens
concept in fostering judicial efficiency, guaranteeing the orderly resolution of conflicts, and
preserving plaintiffs' interests.
Despite widespread acceptance, the lis pendens theory has been challenged and criticised.
One of the principal complaints levelled at the theory is that it may be used as a weapon for
delay tactics by parties wishing to stymie conflict settlement. This might result in a lengthy
legal procedure with major expenses and delays for all parties concerned.
Furthermore, the concept might cause problems for innocent third parties who are unaware of
the legal processes impacting the property they have acquired. Such parties may be required
to deal with legal processes that were initiated prior to the acquisition of the property.