Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.48 seconds)Sm. K. Ponnalagu Ammal vs The State Of Madras, Represented By The ... on 7 November, 1952
39. I have followed the said judgment in K. Ponnalagu Ammani V.
State of Madras, (1953) 66 LW 136 and V.N.Krishna murthy and
another V. Ravikumar and others (2020) 9 SCC 501 and have taken a
view that lis pendens purchaser is a person aggrieved by the decree and is
entitled to file an appeal against the decree. When he is entitled to file an
appeal against the decree, necessarily he is entitled to argue that the
decree passed by the trial Court is wrong.
Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs Nanak Builders & Investrs.P.Ltd & Ors on 21 February, 2013
Therefore, I prefer the latest
view of the Supreme Court in V.N.Krishna murthy and another
V.Ravikumar and others (2020) 9 SCC 501 and the view in Thomson
Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders and investors private limited
and others reported in (2013)5 SCC 397 and hold that a purchaser lis
pendens is entitled to maintain an appeal and urge the correctness of the
decree that had been passed by the trial Court against his vendors.
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
V.L.Dhandapani vs Revathy Ramachandran on 17 June, 2014
37. To complete the narration, I have to add that the view taken in
V.L.Dhandapani Vs. Revathy Ramachandran & others, is in line with
the view taken by the Supreme Court in Thomson Press (India) Limited
Vs. Nanak Builders and investors private limited and others reported in
(2013)5 SCC 397 wherein His Lordship JusticeIqbal, speaking for the
Bench has held that a lis pendens purchaser is entitled to be impleaded as
a party.
Employees State Insurance Corpn And Anr vs M/S.Essar Pneumatic Equipments Thr. ... on 4 July, 2019
39. I have followed the said judgment in K. Ponnalagu Ammani V.
State of Madras, (1953) 66 LW 136 and V.N.Krishna murthy and
another V. Ravikumar and others (2020) 9 SCC 501 and have taken a
view that lis pendens purchaser is a person aggrieved by the decree and is
entitled to file an appeal against the decree. When he is entitled to file an
appeal against the decree, necessarily he is entitled to argue that the
decree passed by the trial Court is wrong.
M/S Meenakshisundaram Textiles vs M/S Valliammal Textiles Ltd on 7 March, 2011
Inasmuch as the said judgment does not
require more than the points for determination and that the
decision thereon, a judgment of a Court of Small Causes
shall not fall under Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Insofar as the judgment of other Court is
concerned, in terms of Order XX Rule 4(2), it shall contain
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 15 of 27
S.A.No.1399 of 2013
a concise statement of the case, the points for
determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for
such decision and therefore it shall fall under Section 2(9)
of the Code of Civil Procedure and in that sense, all the
ingredients contained in Order XX Rule 4(2) must be
available in that judgment. This is more so in view of the
provisions of Order XX Rule 5 relating to the duty of the
Court to state its reasons on each issue. That Rule reads
as under:-
Section 103 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
C.Rameswaran vs N.Sambandam on 29 January, 2009
32. A careful perusal of the said judgment shows it was a case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 20 of 27
S.A.No.1399 of 2013
where a purchaser of the property who obtained it from plaintiff who had
“lost” the case had attempted to file an appeal. In these circumstances
the learned Judge had held as follows: