Section 52 lis pendens does not preclude injunctions against alienation in partition disputes.

The plaintiff sought a declaration that a gift deed dated 18 July 2023 was void, partition of the suit lands, and separate possession of his share.

He claimed that the lands remained joint and that no partition had taken place among the relevant family members.

Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 disputed this, asserting that the lands had been partitioned and that defendant No. 1 had gifted the lands allotted to him to them.

The trial court restrained the defendants from alienating the lands during the suit; the appellate court reversed that order, relying on Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

The plaintiff challenged the appellate order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the plaintiff had raised a triable issue and shown sufficient grounds for temporary injunction against alienation of the suit lands pending trial.

2. Whether the appellate court was justified in setting aside the injunction on the ground that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act adequately protected the plaintiff’s interests.

Article 227 of the Constitution was invoked to challenge the appellate court’s order.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for temporary injunctions to preserve property pending suit.

Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act embodies the doctrine of lis pendens, under which a transfer during litigation is subject to the outcome of the suit; however, the Court held that, in the circumstances of this case, that protection alone was insufficient to prevent complications, third-party involvement, and multiplicity of proceedings.

A disputed question requiring evidence may constitute a triable issue at the interim stage, without being finally determined on the injunction application.

The competing claims about whether partition had occurred, and whether defendant No. 1 could gift the lands to defendants Nos. 2 and 3, required determination after evidence and could not be resolved at the interim stage.

The plaintiff had therefore raised a triable issue.

The Court also noted defendant No. 1’s position that the gift deed had been procured by fraud, which further supported a prima facie case, while recognizing that the allegation itself remained to be proved.

Permitting alienation could bring strangers into the family dispute and cause complications and further litigation.

The appellate court therefore erred in treating Section 52 as sufficient protection and in setting aside the trial court’s injunction.