SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Chh) 43

R.S.GARG
RAM KUMAR TIWARI – Appellant
Versus
DEENANATH – Respondent


R. S. GARG, J.

( 1 ) THE present applicants apprehending their dispossession in execution of the decree passed in favour of respondent No. 1 submitted their objections before the executing Court inter alia submitting that the property in dispute was purchased by them much before the institution of the suit and as their vendor and they themselves were not joined as party in the suit, the decree passed in favour of the decree-holder was not executable against their interest. They prayed for an inquiry in accordance with the Order 21, Rules 98 and 101. The decree-holder opposed the application tooth and nail and submitted before the Court that as the present applicants/objectors had purchased the property during the pendency of the suit, therefore, and in view of the bar contained under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the present petitioners/objectors have no rights in their favour, their application was worth rejection.

( 2 ) AFTER hearing the parties, under Order 18-7-2000, the learned executing Court rejected the objections holding that the property in dispute was purchased during the pendency of the suit, therefore, the objection submitted by the applicants were not wo














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top