Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.23 seconds)Section 52 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Sanjay Verma vs Manik Roy And Ors on 8 December, 2006
58. In my view, the petitioner ought to have impleaded the 1st
respondent purchaser of the suit property before proceeding further and the
suit. Further, there was no injunction operating against the 5th respondent
from selling the properly, in any event as held in Sanjay Verma vs. Manik Roy
and others referred to supra, though the court held that the principle
underlying Section 52 is that a litigating party is exempted from taking notice
of a title acquired during the pendency of the litigation, it also held that mere
pendency of a suit does not prevent one of the parties from dealing with the
property constituting the subject-matter of the suit. The Section only
http://www.judis.nic.in
22
postulates a condition that the alienation will in no manner affect the rights of
the other party under any decree which may be passed in the suit unless the
property was alienated with the permission of the Court.
Section 146 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal on 20 January, 2004
57. Further, as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar versus
Sardari Lal and others referred to supra , it has been observed that the
expression employed in Rule 13 Order 9 of CPC that in a decree is passed ex
parte against the defendant, he may apply for an order to set aside”, the word
”he” cannot be construed with such rigidity and so restrictively to exclude the
person who have stepped into the shoes of the defendant, from moving and
application for setting aside ex parte decree especially in presence of section
146 of CPC. The court held that though lis pendens transferee was not party to
the proceeding he was still entitled to move an application under Order 9 Rule
13 of CPC.
Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao & Anr. on 17 March, 1999
In
this connection he referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao AIR 1999 SC 1441.
Lala Durga Prasad And Another vs Lala Deep Chand And Others on 18 November, 1953
47. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lala Durga Prasad vs Lala Deep
Chand and others 1954 SCR 360 in support of his plea that the 1st respondent
has to work of his remedy against his vendors. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that he would file written submission by placing
reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in AIR 1985 Cal 82 and the
decision rendered in 2005 4 CTC 121. However, no written submission has been
filed.