The Delhi High Court has held that courts possess the authority to exempt a property from the operation of the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in order to protect genuine property owners from harassment through frivolous or speculative litigation. The Court observed that while the doctrine is rooted in equity and aims to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments, it cannot be allowed to become a tool of oppression or an instrument for unjustly restraining legitimate property transactions.
The case concerned a dispute over a property located in Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi, where the appellant claimed to have entered into a sale agreement with the respondents. The appellant relied on WhatsApp messages and Zoom meeting transcripts to establish that an oral agreement to sell the property had been concluded and that part payment had been made. The respondents, however, denied the existence of any concluded contract and asserted that only a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding had been executed. They further pointed out that the appellant had misrepresented facts, selectively quoted communications, and that the MoU itself stated that it created no enforceable rights or obligations.
The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, after examining the materials, found that the appellant had engaged in selective disclosure and suppression of material facts to create a false impression of an enforceable sale agreement. The Court observed that the documents on record did not prove any transfer of interest or binding commitment between the parties. Considering that the plaintiff’s claim was weak and appeared designed merely to cloud the title to the property, the Single Judge exempted the property from the operation of Section 52, allowing the respondents to deal with it despite the pendency of the suit.
On appeal, the Division Bench upheld this decision. The Court noted that when a litigant files a frivolous or mala fide suit merely to obstruct the legitimate rights of property owners, the principle of lis pendens should not automatically apply. Subjecting genuine owners to indefinite restrictions on their property rights in such cases would amount to injustice. The Court clarified that the power to exempt a property from the doctrine of lis pendens must be exercised sparingly and only when the court is satisfied that the litigation is vexatious or speculative in nature.
The Bench further explained that the purpose of this exemption is twofold: to protect bona fide property owners from being trapped in unnecessary and malicious litigation, and to discourage misuse of the judicial process by individuals seeking to block or delay legitimate transactions through fabricated claims. The judgment emphasized that while courts must safeguard the interests of litigants asserting genuine claims, they must also ensure that the judicial process is not weaponized to harm innocent parties.
The Court imposed costs on the appellant, holding that the suit was a clear abuse of process and had been filed with an ulterior motive. It reiterated that equity cannot be extended to those who approach the court with unclean hands. By affirming the exemption granted to the respondents, the High Court upheld the principle that fairness must prevail not only for plaintiffs but also for defendants facing baseless litigation.
Through this ruling, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the balance between protecting pending litigation rights and ensuring that property owners are not victimized by frivolous claims. It recognized that while the doctrine of lis pendens serves an important role in maintaining judicial consistency, it cannot override justice or serve as a shield for dishonest litigants seeking to obstruct lawful ownership and transactions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.