HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR, J
Vijay Laxmi – Appellant
Versus
Pushpchand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
ORDER :
BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.
1. By order dated 10.02.2010 passed in Civil Original Suit No.282/2004 (58/97), the learned trial Judge has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. Since rejection of plaint is a ‘decree’ as defined in Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this appeal has been filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. challenging the aforesaid rejection.
2. A brief background of the case is that respondent No.1 herein namely Pushpchand, who was defendant No.1 of the suit entered into an agreement to purchase Khasra No.310 in village Kudi Bhagtasani, District and Tehsil Jodhpur from Original Defendant No.2-Late Kalu Ram @ Kalia and Original Defendant No.3- Late Pabu Ram @ Pabuda, both sons of late Chaila. On agreement not being performed by Original Defendant Nos.2 and 3, the respondent No.1-Pushpchand brought a suit for specific performance of contract vide Civil Suit No.71/1991 on 30.05.1991. During pendency of the suit, the said Kalu Ram sold his share in Khasra No.310 to 63 persons including the appellants on 29.06.1992 and the sale deed was registered on 07.10.1992. The purchasers got mutated in revenue
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 court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
The executing court is competent to consider all questions raised by the persons offering obstruction against execution of the decree and pass appropriate order, which is to be treated as a decree. T....
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....
Court executing decree shall determine all questions arising between parties to suit or their representatives in relation to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of decree and such questions may not....
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.
The doctrine of lis pendens applies to subsequent purchasers; their rights are subordinate to those of the decree holder in a specific performance case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a decree obtained by a tenant against a licensee can be executable against subsequent purchasers who are in possession without any lawful decr....
Point of law: If once we accept the legal position that neither a contract for sale nor a decree passed on that basis for specific performance of the contract gives any right or title to the decree-h....
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.