Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Supreme Court Rules on Doctrine of Lis Pendens

    Transféré par

    Riz Shaikh
    181 vues3 pages
    The Supreme Court of India clarified the law around the doctrine of lis pendens and how it interacts with the registration of documents under Section 47(2) of the 1908 Registration Act. The Court held that if a sale deed is registered after a civil suit has commenced regarding the property, even if the deed relates back to the execution date, it is still subject to the principle of lis pendens. Specifically, (1) a sale is not complete until registration, (2) Section 47's relation back does not circumvent lis pendens, and (3) registration after suit filing means the sale is affected by lis pendens.

    Description originale:

    Supreme Court Rules on Doctrine of Lis Pendens and Registration of Documents

    Titre original

    Supreme Court Rules on Doctrine of Lis Pendens and Registration of Documents - Newsletters - International Law Office

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    The Supreme Court of India clarified the law around the doctrine of lis pendens and how it interacts with the registration of documents under Section 47(2) of the 1908 Registration Act. The Court held that if a sale deed is registered after a civil suit has commenced regarding the property, even if the deed relates back to the execution date, it is still subject to the principle of lis pendens. Specifically, (1) a sale is not complete until registration, (2) Section 47's relation back does not circumvent lis pendens, and (3) registration after suit filing means the sale is affected by lis pendens.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    181 vues3 pages

    Supreme Court Rules on Doctrine of Lis Pendens

    Transféré par

    Riz Shaikh
    The Supreme Court of India clarified the law around the doctrine of lis pendens and how it interacts with the registration of documents under Section 47(2) of the 1908 Registration Act. The Court held that if a sale deed is registered after a civil suit has commenced regarding the property, even if the deed relates back to the execution date, it is still subject to the principle of lis pendens. Specifically, (1) a sale is not complete until registration, (2) Section 47's relation back does not circumvent lis pendens, and (3) registration after suit filing means the sale is affected by lis pendens.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 3

    4/22/2016

    SupremeCourtrulesondoctrineoflispendensandregistrationofdocumentsNewslettersInternationalLawOffice

    SupremeCourtrulesondoctrineof
    lispendensandregistrationof
    documents
    December072010

    Litigation, India
    Facts
    Decision
    Comment

    InHarNarainvMamChand,(1)theSupremeCourtdiscussedandreviewedthelawrelatingtothedoctrineoflis
    pendenswithregardtoSection47(2)ofthe1908RegistrationAct.Thedoctrineoflispendensprovidesthatno
    fixedpropertycanbetransferredwhileanactionrelatingtoitispendingbeforeacourtoflaw.(3)UnderSection
    47,aregisteredsaledeedofafixedproperty,onregistration,isdeemedtooperatefromthedateofexecution.The
    courtclarifiedthatthelegalfictioncreatedbyvirtueofSection47doesnotcircumventtheoperationoflis
    pendens.Ineffect,thecourtheldthatifasaledeedwasnotregisteredatthetimethecivilsuitcommencedandis
    registeredsubsequently,thepropertysalewillstillbesubjecttotheprincipleoflispendens.
    Facts
    Thefirstrespondent,ownerofcertainland,mortgagedthepropertyinfavourofitspredecessorininterestofthe
    appellant,whichhadbeeninpossessionofthelandsince1970.Therespondentandtheappellanthadalso
    enteredintoanagreementtoselltheproperty.Subsequently,therespondentexecutedasaledeedpurportingto
    transferthepropertytoathirdpartyonAugust21971.ThesaledeedwasregisteredonSeptember31971.
    IntheperiodbetweenexecutionofthesaledeedanditsregistrationonAugust101971,theappellantfiledsuit
    againsttherespondentseekingspecificperformanceoftheagreementtosell.Thesuitwasresistedbythe
    respondentonthegroundsthatthesaledeed(datedAugust2)relatedbacktothedateofexecutionunderSection
    47,andaccordinglythepropertywasclassedassoldpriortoinitiationofthelawsuit.Theappellantarguedthat
    sinceregistrationtookplaceafterfilingofthesuit,thesalewasaffectedbylispendens.
    ThetrialcourtandtheHighCourtbothtooktheviewthatthedoctrineoflispendensdidnotapplytothefactsof
    thiscase.Thelowercourtshadproceededonthepresumptionthatalthoughthedocumentshadbeenregistered
    afterthesuitwasfiled,theyrelatedbacktothedateofexecution.Therefore,thesaleofthepropertywasdeemedto
    havebeeneffectedonthedateoftheexecutionofthesaledeeditself.
    http://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Litigation/India/AmarchandMangaldasSureshAShroffCo/SupremeCourtrulesondoctrineoflispenden

    1/3

    4/22/2016

    SupremeCourtrulesondoctrineoflispendensandregistrationofdocumentsNewslettersInternationalLawOffice

    Decision
    TheappellantappealedtotheSupremeCourt,whichupheldtheappeal.Itheldthat:
    "inspiteofthefactthattheregistrationwouldrelatebacktothedateofexecution,thesalecannotbe
    termedascompleteuntilitsregistrationanditbecomeseffectiveonlyonceitstandsregistered.Thus,the
    fictioncreatedbySection47doesnotcomeintoplaybeforetheactualregistrationofthedocument."

    TheSupremeCourtobservedthatasimilarissue,thoughinvolvingarightofpreemption,wasconsideredbythe
    ConstitutionBenchinRamSaranLallvMstDominiKuer,(4)whereintheSupremeCourtconcludedthat:
    "inspiteofthefactthattheAct,1908,couldrelatebacktothedateofexecutioninviewofprovisionsof
    Section47oftheRegistrationAct,1908,thesalecouldnotbegiveneffecttopriortoregistrationand
    thusthesalewasnotcompleteuntiltheregistrationofinstrumentofsale."

    ThecourtinRamSaranalsoclarifiedthatSection47oftheRegistrationActdoesnotspecifywhenasaleis
    deemedtobecomplete.Itobservedthat:
    "asalewhichisadmittedlynotcompleteduntiltheregistrationoftheinstrumentofsaleiscompleted,
    cannotbesaidtohavebeencompletedearlierbecausebyvirtueofSection47theinstrumentbywhichitis
    effected,afterithasbeenregistered,commencestooperatefromanearlierdate."(5)

    TheSupremeCourttooktheviewthatthelowercourtsfailedtoappreciatethatthefictioncreatedbySection47of
    theactitselfisaconsequenceofregistrationofthedocument.Accordingly,itwasheldthatthedoctrineoflis
    pendensappliedinthepresentcase,astheregistrationofthesaledeedoccurredafterthesuitwasfiled.
    Comment
    TheSupremeCourthasclarifieditspositionwithregardtotheoperationofSection47oftheRegistrationAct.It
    appearsthat,initsreasoning,thecourthasequatedthewords"shalloperatefrom"to"beeffectivefrom".Onthat
    reading,thepositiontakenbytheSupremeCourtisnotintunewiththeliteralmeaningofthewordsusedin
    Section47.Thisisoneofthemanyinstancesinwhichthecourtshavechosentoeschewaliteralmeaninginfavour
    ofapurposiveoneinordertoservetheendsofjustice.
    ForfurtherinformationonthistopicpleasecontactJasleenKOberoiorBahaarDhawanatAmarchand&
    Mangaldas&SureshAShroff&Cobytelephone(+911141590700),fax(+911126924900)oremail
    (jasleen.oberoi@amarchand.comorbahaar.dhawan@amarchand.com).

    Endnotes
    (1)CivilAppeal995996/2003,October82010.
    (2)Section47ofthe1908act:

    http://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Litigation/India/AmarchandMangaldasSureshAShroffCo/SupremeCourtrulesondoctrineoflispenden

    2/3

    4/22/2016

    SupremeCourtrulesondoctrineoflispendensandregistrationofdocumentsNewslettersInternationalLawOffice

    "Timefromwhichregistereddocumentoperates:Aregistereddocumentshalloperatefromthetime
    whichitwouldhavecommencedtooperateifnoregistrationthereofhadbeenrequiredormade,andnot
    fromthetimeofitsregistration."

    (3)Thedoctrineoflispendens,embodiedinSection52ofthe1882TransferofPropertyAct,effectivelyprovides

    thatduringthependencyofasuitinwhichanyrighttoimmovablepropertyinisquestion,thepropertycannotbe
    transferredbyanypartytothesuitsoastoaffecttherightsofotherparties.
    (4)AIR1961SC1747,byathreetotwomajority.
    (5)Thispositionhasbeenfollowedinaplethoraofcases:HiralalAgrawalvRampadarathSinghAIR1969SC

    244SKMohammadRafiqvKhalilulRehmadAIR1972SC2162ThakurKishanSinghvArvindKumarAIR1995
    SC73andChandrikaSinghvArvindKumarSinghAIR2006SC2199.
    The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the
    disclaimer.
    ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law rms worldwide. In-house
    corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law rm partners, qualify for a free
    subscription.

    JasleenKOberoi BahaarDhawan

    http://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Litigation/India/AmarchandMangaldasSureshAShroffCo/SupremeCourtrulesondoctrineoflispenden

    3/3

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi