Faiyaz Hussain Khan v. Prag Narain
Rule established
S.52 applies only when the right to specific immovable property is directly and specifically in question, not merely incidentally involved
Facts
- A money suit was pending against the defendant
- During the suit, the defendant transferred immovable property
- The plaintiff claimed the transfer was hit by lis pendens
Issue
- Whether a general money suit (not concerning specific property) attracts S.52, making the defendant's transfer of property subject to the decree.
Held
- S.52 does not apply. A general money suit does not put any specific immovable property "directly and specifically in question." For lis pendens to apply, the suit must concern the right to that specific property. A money suit, even if ultimately resulting in attachment, does not satisfy this requirement.
Ratio Decidendi
The words "directly and specifically in question" in S.52 require that the suit must be about the property itself (title, possession, interest). If the property is merely a potential source of satisfaction for a money decree, it is only incidentally connected. The remedy in such cases is attachment before judgment (O.38, CPC), not lis pendens.
How to use it in an exam
Use to distinguish situations where S.52 applies (property suits) from where it does not (money suits). Key line: "A general money suit does not put specific property 'directly and specifically in question'; S.52 lis pendens does not apply."
Source
Source: Avatar Singh, Law of Transfer of Property
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.