Article By: Gaurashwari Rathod

Abstract

The case briefly regards the concept of doctrine of “lis pendens” , section 52 transfer of property act ,  where the possession of land acquired by the collateral  of the owner, was argued by the appellant, the son  of smt. Premi  the heirs of sham singh , apart from it the concept of transfer of property by a widow and distribution of the property by the daughter is also cleared through the same .

Facts and background of the case.

1.Sham singh the owner of disputed property married to smt.Malan, who later became widow of him. The owner had two daughters namely smt premi and smt khemi , the gift deeds were given by smt malan to the sons of smt premi in 1935 , while smt khemi too gifted them the part of property in 1944.

2. The appellant acquired possession  of the entire gifted land, but  legal uncertainties  arose regarding daughters rights and widows power to donate under the customer laws in Punjab

3.The eight degree collateral of Shyam Singh initiated a suit for the possession of disputed  land in 1940.

4.The suit was halted for 5 years i.e  from 1941 to 1946 under Indian soldier litigation act.

5.Apart from it the dispute over mutation also resolved in revenue courts in favour of appealents in 1946.

6.The respondents 1942 suit for the sake of right of possession concluded on November 21 1958 with the division branch of Punjab High court who ruled for the appellants.

Issues raised

Whether the painter obtained the position of land in disputes through the tehsildar near about the date 13/12 1946 as a leaked by them in para 3rd of the plant

Weather the defendant took possession of the land and disput after 21/11 1938 as a leaked in para 5 of plate

Whether the  defendant have become owner of the land in this put through adverse position.

Arguments

Appellants

As per the peel and argument they are linked that the respondent had taken the unoff and aggressive control of land and disputes after 1958 High court decision and have refused to deliver the possession to them.

Respondents

They came to have the possession in 1944 after shrimati khemu’s death so  that the appellant’s suit was disqualified by limitation.

Relevant legal provisions

Article 142 of limitation act

The article pertains to suit for the possession of immovable property where the plantive was previously and possession and was then disposessed or discontinued possession with the limitation period of 12 years from the date of disposition or discontinuance , essentially it governance cases where someone is claiming possession of land they have previously occupied but where forcefully recovered from it.

Section 52 of TPA ( doctrine of lis pendens)

This section deals with the peninsular for suit or proceedings which has to be deemed to comments from the date of presentation of the plant or the institution of the proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been dispossessed of bio final degree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such degree or order has been obtained by the reason of the expiration of any period implementation prescribed for the execution themselves by any law for the time being in force.

Decision

The caught emphasist that the purpose of the law of limitation is to prevent disruption of right acquired through long term enjoyment and to penalise in action or negligence at clarified that section 52 of TPA does not impact the limitation period unless explicitly stated the exclusion of time in computing limitation period falls at the part 3rd after limitation act 1963.

For section 14 of limitation act to apply the plaintiff must have pursuit prior civil presidings with due degligence based on the same cause of action in this case the cause of action in the previous root was different from the current one.

Regarding the doctrine of flis pendants the court reiterated that it aims to ensure that any party acquiring rights in an in revocable property under litigation remain subject to the courts jurisdiction its cited Jayaram mudaliar vs ayyaswamy 1973 explaining that list pendants refers to control over disputed property during a pending suit and then final judgement.

Ratio discendi

The court observe that certain conditions for the applicability of section 14 of limitation act 1963 as under

The plaintiff should have prosecuted with the diligence civil precedings founded upon the same cause of action

The cause of action a rose according to the plaintives after the decision of the previous suit.

The caught two observe that the Les pendants literally means a pending suit and the doctrine of Les pendants has been defined as the jurisdiction power or control which Accord acquires over property involved in a suit pending the continents of the action and until final judgement there in.

Precedent case law.

The court observed  the decision of the issue on the precedent case laws as defined under:-

1. Sukubhai versus Eknath belappa
2. Bindiya chal Chand and ORS vs Ram Garib Chand Anwar yas
3. Jayaram mudliyar versus ayyaswamy and ors  1973 1 scr  189.

Conclusion

The case relating to the concept of doctrine list pendants which was further refused to be applied against the express provision of the limitation act 1963 as the case concludes the important condition required for the application of the document of responding and to the conclusion of the case the plating suit for possession was bad by limitation essentially meaning their claim was time bad due to that lapse of the prescribed period under imitation act and does the appeal was dismissed the caught further emphasis that the doctrine of Les pendants cannot be used to circumvent the limitation period set by the law there by up holding the importance of timely legal action in property disputes.