Topic: Sec 52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto

During the 1[pendency] in any Court having authority 2[ 3[within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir] or established beyond such limits] by 4[the Central Government] 5[* * *] of 6[any] suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immoveable 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.

7[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.]

COMMENTS

(i) This section comes into existence from the point of the institution of the suit and continues to survive till the satisfaction of the decree. The petitioners were as much bound by the decree and judgement dated 16th August, 1973 and their transferor; Abdul Aziz v. District Judge, AIR 1994 All 167.

(ii) The effect of doctrine of his pendens as embodied in section 52 of Transfer of Property Act is not to annul all voluntary transfers effected by the parties to a suit but only to render it subservient to the rights of the parties thereto under the decree or order which may be made in that suit. Its effect is only to make the decree passed in the suit binding on the transferee if he happens to be third party person even if he is not a party to it. The transfer will remain valid subject, however to the result of the suit; K.A. Khader v. Rajamma John Madathil, AIR 1994 Ker 122.