A.B.CHAUDHARI
Shrikrushna Narayan Tupkari – Appellant
Versus
Mahadeo – Respondent
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the rival parties.
2. By means of present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 19.5.2013 passed by learned District Judge-2, Akola (below Exh. 23) in Regular Civil Appeal No.31/2013, by which the said Application (Exh.23) filed by the present petitioner, was rejected.
3. In support of the Writ Petition Mr. A.S. Mehadia, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice to the suit property and he came to know about pendency of the Appeal against the judgment and decree for specific performance of contract that was passed by the learned trial Judge in RCS No.388/2012 and, therefore, in order to save his interest, filed Application (Exh.23) in the pending Appeal. The lower Appellate Court rejected the Application (Exh.23) only on the ground that the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser and is a stranger to the litigation and in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (henceforth referred to as “ the T.P. Act”), as per the doctrine of lis pendens, the decree is binding on him. As such,
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.