Samarendra Nath Sinha v Krishna Kumar Nag

Facts

A dispute concerned property dealt with during the pendency of litigation in which the right to that immovable property was directly and specifically in question. The transferee pendente lite claimed not to be bound by the decree subsequently passed in the suit, contending the section did not cover the transaction.

Issues

• Whether the doctrine of lis pendens binds a transferee who acquires the suit property during the pendency of the proceeding.
• Whether the principle of lis pendens (as distinct from the section's strict terms) extends to involuntary alienations and to those without notice.

Arguments

The transferee argued he was not a party to the suit and should not be bound by its outcome. The opposing party relied on Section 52 and the Privy Council authorities to assert that any dealing pendente lite is subordinate to the decree.

Held

The Supreme Court approved and followed the Privy Council line of authority and held that the purchaser pendente lite is bound by the result of the litigation as completely as if he had been a party; the doctrine is founded on expediency, namely that no suit could be brought to a successful conclusion if alienations pendente lite were allowed to prevail. The Court further affirmed that, although the section itself may not strictly apply to involuntary alienations such as court sales, the underlying principle of lis pendens applies to such transfers as well.

Ratio decidendi

A person who purchases or otherwise deals with immovable property during the pendency of a non-collusive suit relating to it takes subject to, and is bound by, the decree ultimately passed; the principle of lis pendens extends beyond voluntary transfers to involuntary alienations.

Significance

Leading Supreme Court authority cementing the lis pendens doctrine in post-Constitution Indian law; relied on repeatedly for the proposition that the doctrine binds even transferees without notice and applies to court sales/involuntary alienations.

Related