Back
A. V. RAVINDRA BABU
Bayyavarapu Ramesh, S/o. B. Gurunadha Rao – Appellant
Versus
Avala Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Rama Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Challenge in this appeal suit is to the order, dated 09.11.2018 in E.A.No.1 of 2018 in E.P.9 of 2015 in O.S.No.326 of 2004, on the file of VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam (Additional District Judge” for short), whereunder the learned Additional District Judge dealing with a claim under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dismissed the said E.A.No.1 of 2018. Felt aggrieved of the order, the unsuccessful claimants in E.A.No.1 of 2018 as above, filed the present appeal suit.
2. The parties to this appeal suit will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Additional District Judge for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the claimants, in brief, before the learned Additional District Judge in E.A.No.1 of 2018 in E.P.No.9 of 2015 in O.S.No.326 of 2004, is that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the petition schedule property. They are in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of purchase, dated 10.07.2007 under a registered sale deed bearing document No.3427/2007 from Mylavarapu Satyavathi (third respondent in E.A.No.1 of 2018). Originally there was an old build
The doctrine of lis pendens prevents subsequent purchasers from claiming rights over property already subject to a legal decree.
Possession at the time of attachment is critical for claims; ex-parte decrees obtained collusively are not binding on decree holders.
A party cannot assert ownership or set aside property attachments if the property was previously alienated during a court-ordered attachment, regardless of purported ignorance of such order.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of valid documentation and unchallenged possession in establishing ownership rights, as well as the requirement for legal challen....
A subsequent purchaser cannot claim better title against earlier proceedings confirming a sale in favor of another party, as established by Order XXI Rule 92(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(1) Alienation of property after attachment – Where attachment has been made, any private transfer or delivery of property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to judgment-debtor of an....
A plaint cannot be rejected based on the defendants' defenses; only the plaint and accompanying documents should be considered.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
