What is the main legal point in this case?

The effect of lis pendens under Section 52 TPA—transfers during a pending suit are not void, but they remain subject to the final decree.

Are transfers during suit illegal or void?

No. They are valid in form but subordinate to the rights decided in the suit. The decree binds the transferee.

What relief was sought in the original suit?

Specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land; alternatively, money recovery.

How did the courts decide before the Supreme Court?

Trial Court and First Appeal refused specific performance; High Court granted specific performance on enhanced consideration; the matter reached the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court clarify about lis pendens?

Section 52 does not annul the transfer; it only ensures that any decree will bind the transferee, who takes the property subject to the suit's result.

Madhukar Nivrutti Jagtap v. Smt. Pramilabai

Madhukar Nivrutti Jagtap v. Smt. Pramilabai (2020) 15 SCC 731

Supreme Court of India 2020 Transfer of Property / Specific Performance Citation: (2020) 15 SCC 731 Reading Time: ~8 min

Gulzar Hashmi

Nov 01, 2025

India

Quick Summary

This case explains the doctrine of lis pendens (TPA, Section 52). The question: if a party sells the property while a suit is still going on, is that sale illegal? The Supreme Court said: the sale is not void. But the buyer takes it subject to the final court decision. So, the decree in the suit will bind the buyer.

Transfer valid, but subordinate TPA s.52 (Lis Pendens) Specific Performance context

Issues

Are transfers made during the pendency of a suit illegal or void under Section 52 TPA?
What is the legal effect of such transfers on rights decided by the decree?

Rules

Lis pendens does not cancel the sale. It makes the sale subservient to the decree.
The transferee is bound by the result of the pending suit and cannot defeat the decree-holder’s rights.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline

20.09.1965: Agreement to sell farm land for ₹22,951; ₹3,500 paid as earnest.

Late 1965: Standing crops; possession of half share promised by year-end.

24.09.1965: Extra ₹2,000 paid; 14.11.1965: 25 acres delivered in part performance.

05.04.1966: Buyers served notice; supplementary agreement executed; ₹500 more paid; remaining land delivered.

Consideration: ₹6,000 paid; balance fixed at ₹11,951 after ₹5,000 for encumbrances; sale deed due within 15 days.

1968: Suit No. 83/1968 filed for specific performance (Survey No. 64, 50 acres 39 gunthas, Gulvanchi, N. Solapur).

13.04.1984 (Trial Court): Specific performance refused; money decree granted.

30.11.1987 (First Appeal): Trial decree affirmed.

01.08.2007 (High Court): Specific performance granted on enhanced consideration (market value).

Supreme Court: Considered impact of transfers during pendency under Section 52 TPA.

Arguments

Appellant (Subsequent Transferees)

Purchases should stand unaffected; they paid value and took title.
Decree should not disturb their rights fully.

Respondents (Original Plaintiffs)

Transfers pendente lite fall under Section 52 TPA.
Any decree for specific performance binds the transferees.
Transferees take property subject to suit’s outcome.

Judgment

Held: Referring to Section 52 TPA, the Court clarified that a transfer during a pending suit is hit by lis pendens in this sense—the decree will bind the transferee. The transfer is not void; it survives, but remains subject to the result of the suit.

Purpose of Section 52 is to protect the suit’s subject matter from being defeated.
Subsequent purchasers cannot claim better rights than the transferor had during the suit.

Ratio

Section 52 TPA does not annul transfers. It subordinates them to the decree. A pendente lite transferee is bound by the result and cannot defeat specific performance.

Why It Matters

Stability of litigation: prevents parties from undermining suits by mid-suit sales.
Guides buyers: pendente lite purchases are risky and conditional.
Supports decrees: ensures effective specific performance.

Key Takeaways

Transfers during suit are valid but subordinate to the decree.
Transferee is bound by the final outcome of the litigation.
Lis pendens protects the subject property from frustration.
Specific performance can bind pendente lite purchasers.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “SALE STAYS, DECREE SWAYS”

The sale stays on record.
The decree sways the final rights.

3-Step Hook:

Ask: Was a suit already pending?
Check: Did a transfer happen after filing?
Conclude: Buyer is bound by the eventual decree.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is a transfer pendente lite illegal/void, or only subject to the decree under Section 52 TPA?

Rule

Lis pendens does not annul transfers; it binds transferees to the decree’s outcome.

Application

Subsequent purchasers may be added as parties; they hold title subject to specific performance decreed by the court.

Conclusion

Transfers are valid but subordinate; decree binds the transferee.

Glossary

Lis Pendens: A doctrine that restrains parties from changing property rights during a pending suit.
Pendente Lite: “During the suit”; describes actions taken while litigation is underway.
Specific Performance: Court order to perform a contract, usually for sale of immovable property.