Introduction

• This case deals with the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) will apply against the express provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Facts

• The plaintiffs, sons of Smt. Premi and heirs to Sham Singh, the original owner of the disputed plots, received a gift from Smt. Malan, the widow of Sham Singh, in 1935.
• The gift was split equally between the plaintiffs and Smt. Khemi, the younger sister of Smt. Premi, who later made a gift back to the plaintiffs before her death in 1944.
• The suit, initially filed in 1941, was stayed until 29^th May 1946, under the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, benefiting the plaintiffs.
• The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants unlawfully took possession of the land after the High Court's decision on 23^rd November 1958, leading them to file a possession suit.
• The defendants argued that they acquired possession of the entire land after Smt. Khemi's death in 1944, claiming open, continuous, exclusive ownership adverse to others, asserting the plaintiffs' suit was time-barred.
• The appellants sought possession, but the defendants countered, citing the bar of limitation and acquisition of title through adverse possession exceeding 12 years.
• The first appellate court said that because there was already a case going on, the people who were against the decision couldn't get their rights.
• The High Court agreed that the people who were already living on the land had rights.
• It said that even though the other side tried to take over the land later, they could not because they started their attempt while the first case was still happening. And even though their attempt failed later, the rights of the people living there didnot go away.
• Henc, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court.

Issue Involved

• Whether the doctrine of lis pendens contained in Section 52 of the TPA, arrest the running period of the limitation during the pendency of the suit of the defendants filed in 1940 and finally decided in 1958?

Observations

• The Court observed that the object or the law of limitation is to prevent disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence, or laches.
• The Court further said, if Section 52 of the TPA was really intended to strike at the running of the period of limitation, based on the considerations mentioned above, it would have made it clear that the law excludes the period spent in any litigation from computation.
  • Exclusion of time in computing periods of limitation is a different subject altogether to which the whole of Part III of the Limitation Act is devoted.
• The Court said that there are certain conditions for the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
  • One of these is that the plaintiff should have prosecuted, with due diligence, civil proceedings "founded upon the same cause of action".
  • In the case before us, the cause of action arose, according to the plaintiffs, after the decision of the previous suit.
  • The cause of action in the previous suit was entirely different. Indeed, it was the defendants who had sought relief there and set up a cause of action.
• The Court said as far as the doctrine of lis pendens is concerned, the whole object of the doctrine of lis pendens is to subject parties to the litigation as well as others, who seek to acquire rights in immovable property which are the subject matter of a litigation, to the power and jurisdiction of the Court so as to prevent the object of a pending action from being defeated;
• The Court discussed the case Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami and Ors. [1973] 1 SCR 139 and observed that Lis pendens literally means a pending suit, and the doctrine of lis pendens has been defined as the jurisdiction, power, or control which a court acquires over property involved in a suit pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgment therein.

Conclusion

• The Court finally refused to apply an alien doctrine of lis pendens against the express provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.