Back
H. P. SANDESH
Raoji S/o. Devaji patel – Appellant
Versus
K. M. Savithridevi – Respondent
ORDER :
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH)
The relief sought in the writ petition is to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 23.11.2023 passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi in E.P.no.196/2022 thereby dismissing the I.A.No.V filed under Order XXI rule 97 and 101 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) as per Annexure-F and such other writ or order or direction as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner is that he had filed a suit bearing O.S.No.91/2000 for the relief of specific performance and the said suit was decreed vide Annexure-A on 21.12.2000. The respondents herein had filed a Miscellaneous Appeal No.21554/2008 as against the orders passed in Miscellaneous Appeal and also for the limitation and this Court had allowed the appeal and remanded the matter on 25.07.2014 vide Annexure-B. The respondents herein had filed Execution Petition No.196/2002 which is produced as Annexure-C. The petitioner had filed obstructer application under Order XXI Rule 97 read with 101 of CPC and prayed the Trial Court to determine the rights of the applicant and
A subsequent purchaser cannot assert rights against a prior decree holder, as established by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
(1) Lis Pendens – Section 52 of T.P. Act has no application where transfer in favour of subsequent purchaser is not after filing of suit but before filing of suit for specific performance.(2) Resista....
The court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
Bonafide purchasers without notice of an original agreement can challenge a decree in a separate suit, as the Execution Court cannot adjudicate on the decree's collusiveness.
The doctrine of lis pendens applies to subsequent purchasers; their rights are subordinate to those of the decree holder in a specific performance case.
A third party claiming under a judgment debtor cannot file an application under Order XXI Rule 97; they must file under Rule 99 instead.
A transferee pendente lite has no right to resist the decree under Order XXI, Rules 97 and 101 of the CPC.
A purchaser of property during the pendency of a suit has no right to resist or obstruct the execution of a decree, as per Order XXI Rule 102 and the doctrine of lis pendens.
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
