Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.46 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Usha Sinha vs Dina Ram & Ors on 14 March, 2008
31. Though, it was in a different context but it may be noted that the
principal laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of
Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram and Others (2008) 7 SCC 144 is that
a transferee should be careful before he purchases a property
which is subject matter of litigation. The doctrine of lis pendens
recognized by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act prohibits
dealing with the property which is the subject matter of the suit.
The lis pendens itself is stated as constructive notice to the
purchaser that he is bound by the outcome of pending litigation.
The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976
Section 278 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Smt. Babuain Chandrakala Devi vs Smt. Pokhraj Kuer And Ors. on 11 May, 1962
37. The cases of Smt. Babuain Chandrakala Devi v. Smt.
Pokhraj Kuer and others, AIR 1963 Patna 2 and Namberumal
Chetti v. Veeraperumal Pillai, AIR 1930 MAD 956 relied upon
by Appellant Indian Associates related to will imposing certain
restrictions on the powers of executor to dispose the property of
deceased. It was held that the law does not impose any duty on
the purchaser from an executor to inquire into the necessity of
the transfer and that the transfer of property should be with the
permission of the Court which granted the probate. These cases
FAO(OS) No.641/2009 Page 29 of 33
are not applicable to the facts of the present case. However, as
noted above, even in the case of probate, the executor was
required to seek the permission of the Court to dispose of the
property.
R.K. Mohammed Ubaidullah & Ors vs Hajee C.Abdul Wahab (D) & Ors on 18 July, 2000
In R.K. Mohammad Ubaidullah and others v.
Hajee C. Abdul Wahab, (2000) 6 SCC 402, the Supreme Court
has held that unless a purchaser has made appropriate inquiry,
he cannot establish his bona fides.
Section 211 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
N. Namberumal Chetti vs Veeraperumal Pillai And Ors. on 28 February, 1930
37. The cases of Smt. Babuain Chandrakala Devi v. Smt.
Pokhraj Kuer and others, AIR 1963 Patna 2 and Namberumal
Chetti v. Veeraperumal Pillai, AIR 1930 MAD 956 relied upon
by Appellant Indian Associates related to will imposing certain
restrictions on the powers of executor to dispose the property of
deceased. It was held that the law does not impose any duty on
the purchaser from an executor to inquire into the necessity of
the transfer and that the transfer of property should be with the
permission of the Court which granted the probate. These cases
FAO(OS) No.641/2009 Page 29 of 33
are not applicable to the facts of the present case. However, as
noted above, even in the case of probate, the executor was
required to seek the permission of the Court to dispose of the
property.
Tincowri Pramanik vs Narayan Chandra Mukherjee And Anr. on 28 May, 1956
38. Similarly, the cases of Tincowri Pramanik v. Narayan
Chandra Mukherjee, AIR 1957 Calcutta 364 and Adeline
Maude Ellanor Catchick Nee Roberison and another v.
Sunderlal Daga and others, AIR (37) 1950 Calcutta 559, also
related to probate and not the LOA. In these cases also, the Will
contained limitations on the powers of the executor. In both
these cases it was held that the alienee through executor, who is
acting as such has right to infer that the latter is acting fairly. It
was held that the maxim which applies here is "let the executors
do their duty and let the authority cease when injustice begins".