Lis pendens does not stop limitation where adverse possession has run for more than twelve years.

The suit, brought on a plea of possession and dispossession, fell within Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and required the plaintiffs to show a subsisting title within time. The defendants' possession was found to be open, continuous, exclusive and adverse for more than twelve years, so the plaintiffs' claim was barred under Section 3 read with Section 28 of the 1908 Act. The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 did not arrest limitation, because wrongful or illegal possession is not preserved by that doctrine. On that reasoning, lis pendens did not save the suit from the limitation bar.

---

---

Issues: Whether the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 arrested the running of limitation so as to save the plaintiffs' suit from the bar of Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Analysis: The plaintiffs sued on the footing of possession and dispossession, so the suit fell within Article 142 and necessarily raised the question whether they had a subsisting title within time. The defendants' possession was found to be open, continuous, exclusive and adverse for more than twelve years, attracting the statutory bar under Section 3 read with Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The doctrine of lis pendens was held inapplicable because illegal possession or continuance of wrongful possession is not a

---