section 52 Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.

52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto

During the pendency in any court having authority 3[4[within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir] Government or established beyond such limits] by the Central Government of any suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the court and on such terms as it may impose.

Explanation : For the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

52Transfer of Property Pending suit relating thereto.- During the pendency in any court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the propertycannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceedings so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.

adjudication of the case. In so far as Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is concerned, it provides a statutory bar on the parties from transferring any interest in the subject matter of theproperty and on this basis it is to be tested that the said alienation is non-est in the eye of law and the party could be governed by the final verdict in the proceedings. The outstanding feature in the provision is that the above said legal consequences would not occur if the alienation were made under the authority of the Court. It is well nigh settled that lis pendens has to be treated as a constructive notice to a purchaser and that he is bound by a decree to be passed in the pending suit.

18. After referring to the relevant decisions on this point the Apex Court has expressed its view that when the purchaser obtained the property during the pendency of the suit without seeking leave of the Court, as required by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, he being a transferee pendente-lite, cannot pray the Court as of right to seek impleadment as a party in the suit. It is also stated that there is no absolute rule that the transferee pendente-lite, without leave of the Court, in all cases allowed to be joined

If it is not shown that the purchase was made without the knowledge of the Court then he disqualifies himself to get impleaded in the suit. The statutory bar contained in Section 52 of theTransfer of Property Act would operate against the person to enter into the suit who is a transferee pendente lite since the transfer is non-est in the eye of law. Such transferee would be entitled for the right of the transferor alone and nothing more. Whatever be the decree, which adjudicates the rights of the transferor, the transferee pendente lite shall be bound by it. It is needless to elaborate the term "under authority of the Court" incorporated in Section52 of the Transfer of Property Act. A party who intends to get transfer of property during the pendency of the suit has to get sanction from the Court.

 

Madras High Court
Rajalakshmi Sivakumar vs N. Rajavelu

DATED : 23..01..2009

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. PALANIVELU

C.R.P. (P.D.) Nos.4315 and 4316 of 2008

and M.P.Nos.1 of 2008

Rajalakshmi Sivakumar … Petitioner

Vs

1. N. Rajavelu

2. Sanjeevi

3. Munuswami

4. Pushpa

5. Kamala Subramanian

6. Selvam

7. Kasthuri Selvam

8. J. Saraswathi Ammal … Respondents

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: