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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
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