Skip to main content

Purchaser of litigated property cannot stop claim of decree holder - P&H High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a case relating to restriction and objection of property of a transferee pendente lite, the Court ruled that Order 21, Rule 102 of Civil Procedure Code is not applicable in such cases. Placing reliance on Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram (2008) 7 SCC144 where the Supreme Court held that a third party purchasing property from a party to the suit which is the subject matter of litigation, cannot restrict the rightful claim of the decree holder.

The Court discussed Order 21 of C.P.C Rule Nos. 97, 98 and 102, wherein it is laid down that in case the decree holder’s possession is being restricted then an application can be filed in the Court upon which the Court shall adjudicate. Rule 102 specifically excludes transferee pendente lite from seeking any relief under Rule Nos. 97 and 98. The Court observed the language of Order 21 Rule 98 and 102 C.P.C., and said that any alienation recorded during the pendency of the suit would not in any way place any fetter upon the rights of a decree holder to seek possession of the suit property which has been alienated ostensibly to defeat the rights of the decree holder. As per the Court, the pendency of the suit is a Constructive Notice to the third party transferee. Rule 102 recognizes the doctrine of lis pendens as enshrined in S. 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to protect the decree holder. Thus the decree holder invoking Rule 102 has to show that that the person resisting the possession or offering obstruction is claiming his title to the property after the institution of the suit in which decree was passed and sought to be executed against the judgment debtor. [Harjit Kaur v. Vinod Kumar, Civil Revision No. 4622 of 2013, decided on March 4, 2014.]

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more