Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)Section 19 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Lala Durga Prasad And Another vs Lala Deep Chand And Others on 18 November, 1953
In Durga Prasad v. Deep Chand (AIR 1954 SC 75) (supra) their Lordships were dealing with the form of the decree in a suit directing specific performance of contract between the vendor and the plaintiff and in that connection, with a view to convey to the plaintiff, without cancelling the subsequent sale, they without enforcing the contract against the subsequent purchaser, directed him to join in the conveyance so as to pass on the title which resided in him to the plaintiff. It was not a case falling within the mischief of S, 52 of the T. P. Act.
Gouri Dutt Maharaj vs Sheikh Sukur Mohammed on 6 April, 1948
Thus, in the present case it may be that the subsequent transferee was entirely, ignorant of any tight on the part of (SIC) contractor, and also of the pen-(SIC) of the suit filed against the vendor by such contractor, yet as the transfer was made to him by the vendor after the institution of the suit of the contractor and, while it was pending, the subsequent purchaser cannot set up against the contractor any right from which his vendor is excluded by the decree. The title of the subsequent purchaser is good against him on the ground of breach of covenant, but against the plaintiff contractor who seeks specific performance of the contract against the vendor, the subsequent transferee can be in no way 'better position than the vendor himself. It is well settled that in a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of immoveable property a right to immoveable property is directly and 'specifically in question, (see Gauri Dutt Mahraj v. Sheikh Sukur Mohammad ,(75 Ind App 165) s (AIR 1MB PC 147)).
Faiyaz Husain Khan vs Munshi Prag Narain on 21 March, 1907
5. The Privy Council had adopted the same principle in Faiyaz Husain Khan v. Munshi Frag Narain ((1907) 34 Ind App 102) where they lay stress on the necessity for final adjudication and observation that otherwise there would be no end to litigation and justice would be defeated.
Samarendra Nath Sinha & Anr vs Krishna Kumar Nag on 1 November, 1966
7. In the light of these principles we have got to consider whether in the event of a conflict arising between the doctrine of lis pendens enshrined in S, 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the rule availing a subsequent transferee without notice, contained in Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act either the one or the other should prevail. Ordinarily, it is true that the title acquired by the subsequent purchaser is good, the sale to him being not void. But he who pruchases during the pendency of the suit is bound by the decree, that may be made against the person from whom he derives title. The litigating parties are exempted from the necessity of taking any notice of a title so acquired (see Samarendra Nath Sinha v. Krishna Kumar Nag (AIR 1967 SC 1440)), As to the vendor and the prior contractor it is as if no such title existed. Section 52 places a complete embargo on the transfer of any right to immoveable property pending suit, which is directly and specifically in question in such a litigation; it enacts that during the pendency of the suit in which any right to immoveable property is "directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise alienated by any party to the suit so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree."
Ganga Charan vs Bans Bahadur Singh And Anr. on 20 May, 1974
1. Doubting the correctness of the decision of this Court in Ganga Charan v. Bans Bahadur Singh (AIR 1975 AH 25) a learned Single judge of this Court has made this referring order which posits the following: Whether Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is subject to 19 (b) of the New Specific Belief Act.
1