Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)Section 52 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Abdul Hamid And Anr. vs Nur Mohd on 21 April, 1976
(i) Abdul Hamid & Anr. Vs. Nur Mohammad AIR 1976
Delhi 328
Prakash Sharma (Deceased) Thr. Smt. ... vs Delhi Development Authority on 21 September, 2000
(iv) Parwati Devi & Ors. Vs. DDA 159 (2009) DLT 467
Shri Sanjeev Narang vs M/S. Prism Buildcom Pvt. Ltd. on 11 July, 2008
30. The last part which the plaintiff has to satisfy is that the
plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss. I do not feel that if
the order of injunction is vacated, the plaintiff will suffer an
irreparable loss. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act
deals with the doctrine of lis pendens as has been
discussed above clearly lays down that any property which
is subject matter of a suit or a litigation, cannot be
permitted to be transacted without the permission of the
Court and would be transacted subject to the outcome of
the decision in the matter. This fact is also reiterated by
the Division Bench of our own High Court in case titled
Sanjeev Narang Vs. Prism Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 154(2008)
DLT 508 (DB), where it has been observed as under:-
Sh. K.L. Sethi vs Sh. S. Kishan Singh on 1 May, 2009
(iii) K.L.Sethi Vs. S.Kishan Singh 159 (2009) DLT 464
Durga Periwal vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 28 August, 2008
1