Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (0.23 seconds)

Krishnaji Pandharinath vs Anusayabai And Anr. on 24 March, 1958

"If such a view is not taken, it would plainly be impossible that any action or suit could be brought to a successful termination if alienations pendente lite were permitted to prevail. The explanation to this section lays down that the pendency of a suit or a proceeding shall be deemed to continue until the suit or a proceeding is disposed of by final decree or order, and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force. In the present case, it would be canvassed on behalf of the respondent and the applicant that the sale has taken place in favour of the applicant at a time when there was no stay operating against such sale, and in fact when the second appeal had not been filed. We would however, prefer to follow the dicta in Krishanaji Pandharinath (supra) to cover the present situation under the principle of lis-pendens since the sale was executed at a time when the second appeal had not been filed but which came to be filed afterwards within the period of limitation. The doctrine of lis-pendens is founded in public policy and equity, and if it has to be read meaningfully such a sale as in the present case until the period of limitation for second appeal is over will have to be held as covered under section 52 of the T.P. Act."
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Jayaram Mudaliar vs Ayyaswami And Ors. on 12 April, 1972

In Ramjidas Vs. Laxmi Kumar and others, AIR 1987 MP 78 (Gwalior Bench) following several authorities of different Courts including the Apex Court's decision in Jayaram Mudaliar (supra) the Court observed that the purpose of Section 52 is not to defeat any just and equitable claim but only to subject them to the authority of Court which is dealing with the property to which the claims are put forward.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 84 - M H Beg - Full Document

Mohammed Ali Abdul Chanimomin vs Bisahemi Kom Abdulla Saheb Momin And ... on 3 October, 1972

28. A Division Bench in Mohammed Ali Abdul Chanimomin Vs. Bisahemi Kom Abdulla Saheb Momin and another, AIR 1973 Kant 131 said that object of Section 52 is to subordinate all derivative interests or all interests derived from parties to a suit by way of transfer pendente lite to the rights declared by the decree in the suit and to declare that they shall not be capable of being enforced against the rights acquired by the decree-holder. A transferee in such circumstances therefore takes the consequences of the decree which the party who made the transfer to him would take as the party to the suit. This is founded on the principle of public policy and no question of good faith or bona fides arises. The transferee from one of the parties to the suit cannot assert or claim any title or interest adverse to any of the rights and interests acquired by another party under the decree in suit. The principle of lis pendens prevents anything done by the transferee from operating adversely to the interest declared by the decree.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 24 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next