There is law which prohibits or makes the sale null and void if done during the pendency of suit.

The rule of Lis Pendence just says that during the pendency of the lis the transfer made would be subject to the putcome of the suit; nothing more , nothing less than that. 

The Supreme Court in Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami & Ors., (1972) 2 SCC 200, while explaining the doctrine of lis pendens, had held that the purpose of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is not to defeat any just and equitable claim but only to subject them to the authority of the court which is dealing with the property. The court held as follows:

44. In the Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol. L.IV, P.570), we find the following definition: LisPendens 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.

45. Expositions of the doctrine indicate that the need for it arises from the very nature of the jurisdiction of Courts and their control over the subject- matter of litigation so that parties litigating before it may not remove any part of the subject- matter outside the power of the court to deal with it and thus make the proceedings frunctuous.

Citations are produced in court, not provided to clients. We are advocates, not vegetable vendors

Dear sir 

You don't need citations to get the sale deed candles during lis pendence as it will automatically become null and void if you are able to prove that at that time there was a legal proceeding pending related to that property 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS


DATED: 31.07.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

W.P.No.7725 of 2015

P.A.G.Kumaran								.. Petitioner

 Vs.

1. Inspector General of Registration,

 Santhome,

 Chennai.

2. The Sub-Registrar,

 Office of Sub-Registrar,

 Santhome, 

 Chennai.

3. K.Subhashini							 .. Respondents

If there is no stay in suit on transfer of the property then mere pendency of suit cannot be held as ground for cancellation the merit and the judgement of suit forms ground of cancellation.

1. In T.G. Ashok Kumar v. Govindammal & Anr.[5], the Supreme Court observed that if the title of the pendente lite transferor is upheld in regard to the transferred property, the transferee’s title will not be affected. On the other hand, if the title of the pendente lite transferor is recognized or accepted only in regard to a part of the transferred property, then the transferee’s title will be saved only in regard to that extent and the transfer in regard to the remaining portion of the transferred property will be invalid and the transferee will not get any right, title or interest in that portion. If the property transferred pendente lite, is entirely allotted to some other party or parties or if the transferor is held to have no right or title in that property, the transferee will not have any title to the property.

Though also there are view wherein the purchaser can be made party in same suit and with the result of suit title of purchaser depends.

in Lov Raj Kumar v. Dr. Major Daya Shanker and Ors.,[10] the Delhi High Court observed that the ‘principles contained in Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act are in accordance with the principle of equity, good conscience or justice, because they rest upon an equitable and just foundation, that it will be impossible to bring an action or suit to a successful termination if alienations are permitted to prevail. Allowing alienations made during pendency of a suit or an action to defeat rights of a Plaintiff will be paying premium to cleverness of a Defendant and thus defeat the ends of justice and throw away all principles of equity’.

For doctrine of lis pendense read the following citations:

1.AIR 1972(2)SCC) 200

2.AIR 1973 SC 2537-This citation is very important.

3.AIR 1981 SC 981

Hello, 

The Kerala High Court, in the case of Lakshmi vs State of Kerala and Ors, has held that mere pendency of litigation does not ispo facto affect the person’s right to alienate the property. The court relied on Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act to hold that a sale which takes place in the face of a pending litigation would at its best amount to a lis pendens sale.

There is no bar in making the sale, however the purchaser will step into the shoes of the owner and the decree will become equally binding on him as well. 

Refer to the judgment at the following link: 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzXilfcxe7yueU5ZZUZpWGZfUE0/view

Regards 

agreement can be registered, in absence of stay from a court and also in absence of any 'lispendens' registered with the registration office

Dear Client,

Section 52 of the Act does not declare a pendente lite transfer by a party to the suit as void or illegal, but only makes the pendente lite purchaser bound by the decision of the pending litigation.

The purpose of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is not to defeat any just and equitable claim but only to subject them to the authority of the Court which is dealing with the property to which claims are put forward.

1. In Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh[4], the Supreme Court observed that Section 52 of the Act does not declare a pendente lite transfer by a party to the suit as void or illegal, but only makes the pendente lite purchaser bound by the decision of the pending litigation. Thus, if during the pendency of any suit in a court of competent jurisdiction which is not collusive, in which any right of an immovable property is directly and specifically in question, such immovable property cannot be transferred by any party to the suit so as to affect the rights of any other party to the suit under any decree that may be made in such suit.
2. In T.G. Ashok Kumar v. Govindammal & Anr.[5], the Supreme Court observed that if the title of the pendente lite transferor is upheld in regard to the transferred property, the transferee’s title will not be affected. On the other hand, if the title of the pendente lite transferor is recognized or accepted only in regard to a part of the transferred property, then the transferee’s title will be saved only in regard to that extent and the transfer in regard to the remaining portion of the transferred property will be invalid and the transferee will not get any right, title or interest in that portion. If the property transferred pendente lite, is entirely allotted to some other party or parties or if the transferor is held to have no right or title in that property, the transferee will not have any title to the property.
3. In Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami[6], the Supreme Court held that the purpose of Section 52 of the Act is not to defeat any just and equitable claim, but only to subject them to the authority of the Court which is dealing with the property to which claims are put forward.  The Supreme Court went on to further explain the scope of lis pendens as, ‘It is evident that the doctrine, as stated in section 52, applies not merely to actual transfers of rights which are subject-matter of litigation but to other dealings with it by any party to the suit or proceeding, so as to affect the right of any other party thereto. Hence it could be urged that where it is not a party to the litigation but an outside agency such as the tax collecting authorities of the Government, which proceeds against the subject-matter of litigation, without anything done by a litigating party, the resulting transaction will not be hit by Section 52. Again, where all the parties which could be affected by a pending litigation are themselves parties to a transfer or dealings with property in such a way that they cannot resile from or disown the transaction impugned before the Court dealing with the litigation the Court may bind them to their own acts. All these are matters which the Court could have properly considered. The purpose of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is not to defeat any just and equitable claim but only to subject them to the authority of the Court which is dealing with the property to which claims are put forward.’
4. In Rajender Singh and Ors. v. Santa Singh and Ors.[7], it was observed by the Supreme Court that the doctrine of lis pendens was intended to strike at attempts by parties to a litigation to circumvent the jurisdiction of a Court, in which a dispute on rights or interests in immovable property is pending, by private dealings which may remove the subject matter of litigation from the ambit of the court's power to decide a pending dispute or frustrate its decree. Alienees acquiring any immovable property during pending litigation, are held to be bound by an application of the doctrine, by the decree passed in the suit even though they may not have been impleaded in it. 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 litigation, to the power and jurisdiction of the Court so as to prevent the object of a pending action from being defeated.
5. In Gouri Dutt Maharaj v. Sheikh Sukur Mohammed and Ors.[8], it was held that broad principle underlying Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 is to maintain status quo, unaffected by act of any party to the pending litigation.
6. In Ramjidas v. Laxmi Kumar and Ors.[9], the Madhya Pradesh Court observed that the purpose of Section 52 is not to defeat any just and equitable claim but only to subject them to the authority of Court which is dealing with the property to which the claims are put forward.