VoxJuris
Home › Acts › Transfer of Property Act, 1882 › Chapter II › Section 52

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 · Chapter II: Of Transfers of Property by Act of Parties · Apportionment

Section 52: Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto

In plain words

This is the rule of lis pendens. While a genuine suit about rights to immovable property is pending, no party can transfer the property in a way that affects the other party's rights under the eventual decree, except with the court's permission.

  • The suit is pending from when the plaint is filed until the final decree is fully satisfied or can no longer be executed.
  • A buyer during the suit is bound by its result, whether or not they knew of it.

Example: While a suit over a house is pending, the defendant sells it. If the plaintiff wins, the buyer is bound by the decree.

A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.

Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓

Official text

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 proceeding [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 the reto 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 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.]

Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.

Understanding this section

Section 52 states the doctrine of lis pendens. While a suit in which a right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question is pending, a party cannot transfer the property so as to affect the rights of the other party under the eventual decree, except with the court's permission.

What it does and does not do

The transfer is not void. It is valid between the transferor and transferee, but subject to the result of the suit. If the other party wins, the transferee is bound by the decree as if they had been a party, whether or not they knew of the suit. Good faith is irrelevant, because the rule rests on public policy, not notice.

The suit must not be collusive, and the right to the property must be directly in issue. A money suit does not attract the rule. Pendency starts when the plaint is presented and lasts until the decree is fully satisfied or becomes unenforceable.

Transferee pendente lite in the suit

A transferee during the suit is not a necessary party, since the decree binds them anyway. The court may allow them to join to protect their interest, especially where the transferor stops defending. It may refuse where the transferee entered into a clandestine deal.

Key Supreme Court rulings

  • Sanjay Verma v. Manik Roy 2006 INSC 979

    A transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree as much as if they were a party; lis pendens rests on public policy, so good faith does not matter, though mere pendency does not stop a party from dealing with the property.

  • Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb 2003 INSC 608

    A transferee who bought during the suit without the court's leave may ordinarily be joined as a party, but on the facts joinder was rightly refused.

  • Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd. 2013 INSC 118

    A buyer who took a transfer during a specific performance suit through a clandestine transaction was not a bona fide purchaser, but could be added as a party to defend the interest it acquired.

Common mistakes

  • Calling a transfer during the suit void. It is valid but subject to the decree.
  • Applying lis pendens to a suit that only claims money.

Read with: Section 53A Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 146 CPC

Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.

Supreme Court judgments citing the section 52