Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NOS.1 AND 6:

5. Defendant Nos.1 to 6 have filed the written statement contending that they do not have knowledge regarding internal affairs of the plaintiffs. It is stated that defendant No.18 was indicating himself as the Managing
- 24 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19871 HC-KAR Partner of the firm namely Master Products had purchased 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy.39/4 through a registered sale deed dated 18.05.1970. It is the contention that immovable property was transferred to all the partners in equal shares is untenable as it is only during pendency of the suit in which defendant No.18 was contesting the suit proceedings. It is submitted that whatever transactions during the pendency of the suit are hit by principle of lis- pendens and therefore such transactions do not in any way confer any right, title or interest in respect of the suit schedule property.

2

for short 'the KLR Act, 1961'

- 33 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19871 HC-KAR 6.4 It is further pleaded that the co-owners of the CSR Estate divided the properties by metes and bounds and the allotment made in respect of the property on the basis of partition and thereafter, owner of portion of the property, Sri. Aswathnarayana, sold his portion to Metal Closures Pvt. Ltd., through sale deed dated 18.01.2001 and put up construction and started industrial activities is an act pursuant to the decree and before the finality of the final decree proceedings, thereby, the alienations made are hit by lis pendence. The lis pendence purchaser purchasing a disputed property cannot improve upon his rights on the basis of documents prepared subsequent to the decree. Therefore, the documents that are adverted to, are improvement of the original decree suffered by the firm of Master Products and representing in the interest of plaintiffs, C.R.Santosh Kumar, who represented all the members and partners in the suit in O.S.No.1316/1980 and in RFA No.606/1989, has filed the written statement and adduced evidence is accepted; therefore, he is being

6.8 It is pleaded that Buddamma and others suffered a decree. During pendency of the proceedings, all transactions are hit by lis pendence and all are bound by the decree passed by this Court. Buddamma had sold the property over and above her share. The plaintiffs cannot

- 36 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19871 HC-KAR claim the property from the share of Anjanappa and it is kept intact.

6.9 Further, it is pleaded that C.R. Santosh Kumar has suffered decree with Master Products, which he was representing. The lis pendence purchasers have no title over the property, since all the transactions took place during pendency of the litigation hit by lis pendence. No rights can be conferred in favour of the plaintiffs by this Court either by way of declaration or any relief. Therefore, in view of the share allotted and demarcated in the final decree proceedings in favour of Anjanappa, the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as against Buddamma and others; the property purchased from Buddamma over and above her share cannot assert the right with the extent, share and right of Anjanappa.