RAJDHANI UNNAYAN KATRIPAKYA(RAZUK) V MD Habibur RAHMAN 13 BLT HCD 506, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 , 42 of the Specific Relief Act.

Facts in Brief

A declaratory decree was sought in the terms that orders of allotment by Rajdhani Unnayan Katripakhya in respect of 4 kathas of land in favour of Md Omar Faruk, Md Abdul Masrur and Md Iqbal are absolutely illegal, fraudulent, ill motivated, Utra Vires and without jurisdiction. In the dispute, the judgment of reversal had been recorded by learned joint District Judge Arbitration Court in title reversing judgment passed by Learned Additional Assistant Judge. The judgment was recorded by Appellate Judge in the title appeal overruling the judgment.

Issues:

         1). Whether there was any cause of action in favor of the plaintiff  to institute a suit.

        2) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to decree against the defendant.

         3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief.

Rule Of Law:

       1) Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 read with section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.  

       2) Section 9 of the CPC.

Cases Referred:

          1) Hosne Ara Begum V Bangladesh 50 DLR AD 11

          2) Wajed Ali V. Sudhir Chandra Das 20 DLR 513

Application to the fact

The plaintiff laid a title suit  for a declaration that orders of allotment in his favor are illegal, void and order of allotment are not operative and not applicable in respect of plaintiff. where it was contended that 4 kathas and 7 chattacks of land was acquired under Martial Law Regulation No VII Of 1986 and Acquisition matter stood proved by copy of Martial Law Regulation. The contention under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act did not acquire any legal character to seek relief or reliefs as sought by plaintiff. Because the section says that any person entitled to any legal character, may file a suit against any  person ... but No Court shall make any declaration or mere title.

The judgment of Appellate Judge Reversing Decision rendered by Trial Judge suffers from gross illegality in the exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction envisaged under Section 115 Of CPC. Since the land was acquired and vested with RAJUK , the plaintiff could not put forward any claim in the matter of returning back or releasing said land and plaintiff's claim in respect of returning back or releasing the same land.

The standard lease agreement for land in favour of Md Omar Farook and Md Abul Masrur I not under the Doctrine Of Lis Pendens under section 52 of The Transfer Of Property Act 1882. Because this section extends to protect the parties to the litigation against alienation by the opposite parties during the pendency of the litigation Wazed Ali V. Sudhir Chandra Das 

It is a settled rule that the effect of section 52 of The Transfer Of Property Act 1882 is not to wipe out a sale pendentelite altogether but to subordinate it to rights based on the decree or the order passed in the proceeding.

Decision:

The rule arising out of Civil Revision Petition is bereft of substance and the rule out of Civil Revision Petition under 115 of CPC does not survive and it stands discharged. the parties are directed to bear their respective cost of litigation and lower court records be sent down at once.

Conclusion:

The doctrine of Lis Pendens is the jurisdiction of a court to acquire over property in a suit pending until final judgement. but if the proceeding cannot yield any result creating any right, the doctrine does not arise.