Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Ram Peary And Ors. vs Gauri And Ors. on 20 April, 1977

Chintala Madhavi vs S. Venkatamma, / Venkata Lakshmi on 5 June, 2023

In support of this proposition a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Ram Peary and others v. Gauri and others [ AIR 1978 All. 318] as well as a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court was pressed into service. Therefore, the question before us in this case is what is the effect of the lis pendens on the subsequent sale of the same property by the owner to the second purchaser. Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act clearly says subsequent sale can be enforced for good and sufficient reason but in the present case, there is no difficulty because the suit was filed on 3.5.1975 for specific performance of the agreement and the second sale took place on 5.5.1975. Therefore, it is the admitted position that the second sale was definitely after the filing of the suit in question. Had that not been the position then we would have evaluated the effect of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. But in the present case it is more than apparent that the suit was filed before the second sale of the property. Therefore, the principle of lis pendens will govern the present case and the second sale cannot have the overriding effect on the first sale. The principle of lis pendens is still settled principle of law.
Telangana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Chintala Madhavi vs S. Venkatamma / Venkata Lakshmi on 5 June, 2023

In support of this proposition a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Ram Peary and others v. Gauri and others [ AIR 1978 All. 318] as well as a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court was pressed into service. Therefore, the question before us in this case is what is the effect of the lis pendens on the subsequent sale of the same property by the owner to the second purchaser. Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act clearly says subsequent sale can be enforced for good and sufficient reason but in the present case, there is no difficulty because the suit was filed on 3.5.1975 for specific performance of the agreement and the second sale took place on 5.5.1975. Therefore, it is the admitted position that the second sale was definitely after the filing of the suit in question. Had that not been the position then we would have evaluated the effect of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. But in the present case it is more than apparent that the suit was filed before the second sale of the property. Therefore, the principle of lis pendens will govern the present case and the second sale cannot have the overriding effect on the first sale. The principle of lis pendens is still settled principle of law.
Telangana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Sarita Gupta @ Savita Gupta And 4 Others vs Shanti Devi And 23 Others on 6 May, 2022

33. Apex Court in case of Guruswamy Nadar (Supra) relying upon the judgment of Smt. Ram Peary (Supra) and Jugraj Singh (Supra) held that second sale cannot have overriding effect over the first sale due to principle of lis pendens and the subsequent purchaser has only got the right to defend their purchase on the premise that they have no prior knowledge of the sale to the plaintiff.
Allahabad High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - R R Agarwal - Full Document

Gls Foils Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Fws Turnit Logistic Park Llp & Ors. on 10 July, 2023

"79. As regards the contention of Mr. Sethi that the Respondent No.8 has made massive investments, whereas the Claimant has invested a negligible sum of money and, therefore, irreparable loss will be caused to the Respondent No. 8 who has invested Crores of rupees in the construction of the Factory, Plant & Machinery etc., to my mind, the investments made by the Respondent No.8 have no bearing on the facts of the present case if the Claimant succeeds in proving that the sale of the land was made by the Respondents No. 1 to 7 to the Respondent No. 8 after the service of invocation notice upon the Respondents No. 1 to 7 and after the filing of the Petition under Section 11 of the Act, fraudulently and in collusion with each other. The Respondent No. 8 would not then be a bonafide purchaser for value within the meaning of Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act. In any event it is beyond cavil that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act overrides Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act. Assuming Respondent no. 8 to be a bonafide purchaser, its rights would still be subservient to the rights of the Claimant by virtue of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again. [Nivarti Govind Ingale v. Revanagouda Bhimanagouda Patil, (1997) 1 SCC 475 (Para-7),ยท Ram Peary v. Gauri, 1977 SCC OnLineAll455: AIR 1978 All (Para-6); Guruswamy Nadar v. P. Laksltmi Ammal, (2008) 5 SCC 796 : 2008 SCC OnLine SC 759 (Para-6, 9); Ram Swarup Singh v. Maltabir Mahton, 1959 SCC OnLine Pat 48: AIR 1960 Pat 235 (Para-4, 14). No law to the contrary has been cited by the Respondents.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

M. Krishna Murthy vs M. Anantharam And Anr. on 21 February, 2003

25. As against these contentions, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya appearing for the Appellant in CCCA No. 159 of 1999 and respondents in CCCA No. 232 of 1999 submits that defendant No. 2 has no locus standi to question the decree for specific performance when the same has become final insofar as the defendant No. 1 is concerned. He submits that the sale in favour of the defendant No. 2 was hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act is not subject to Section 19(b) of Specific Relief Act. he relies on the decision of the Division Bench reported in Smt. Ram Peary v. Gauri, AIR 1978 All. 318 and thus he submits that the defendant No. 2 cannot even plead that she is bona fide purchaser without valid notice.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Suguna Rajkumar vs R. Rajmal And Anr. on 30 July, 2003

On the other hand, relying on several decisions including RAMJIDAS v. LAXMI KUMAR, and RAM PEARY v. GAURI, the appellant contends that transfer pending litigation is voidable and not void. We do not want to delve deeper into this aspect. As noticed above, the dispute in this case, has given rise to not only a question as to who has a valid title, but also several other aspects like limitation, res judicata, estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. Each and every one of these principles is sufficient to affect the decision one way or the other. We refrain from examining these complicated questions of facts and law relating to title in these proceedings. By way of an example, we may refer to the suit filed by appellant filed OS 10178 of 1988 against the first respondent for declaration of title in regard to the said property. The said suit was withdrawn on 21.12.1994 with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. But, the appellant did not file any suit. The question is what is the effect of withdrawal of the said suit? On the other hand, the first respondent filed a suit in OS No. 6747 of 1990 against the appellant to cancel the sale certificate dated 24.2.1976, issued in favour of appellant's predecessor-in -title, and to cancel the sale deed executed by G.S. Subramanyam and his brothers in favour of the appellant and to cancel all other documents in regard to the suit property and seeking a direction to the appellant to deliver said documents for the purpose of cancellation. The suit was dismissed as having abated when the first respondent died in a road accident in March, 1992 and his legal representatives did not choose to come on record. What is the effect of such an abatement? These and similar questions will rightly arise for consideration and decided only in a suit.
Karnataka High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 7 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next