Nirmala Industries, Uthagamandalam, Nilgirls Dt. By Its Sole Proprietor, C. S. Benjamin – Appellant
Versus
Srinivasa Perumal Financing Corporation – Respondent
1. Three important questions of law as enunciated below, arise for consideration in this civil miscellaneous appeal. They are:
(i) Whether an agreement for sale of the equity of redemption by a mortgagor during the pendency of a suit by the mortgagee for enforcement of the mortgage, will be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens?
(ii) Whether the holder of an agreement of sale can file an application under Order 21, Rule 89, C.P.C. for setting aside the sale on deposit on the basis he is a person claiming interest in the property sold, and
(iii) Whether the period of limitation for filing an application under Order 21, Rule 89, C.P.C. is governed by Article 127 of the Limitation Act, or by Order 21, Rule 92(2), C.P.C.?
2. The facts giving rise to these questions of law are briefly as under : Respondents 3 to 9 were the owners of an item of property over which a mortgage was created in favour of the first respondent. On 23rd January, 1978 the first respondent filed a suit, O.S. No. 85 of 1978 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore, for enforcement of the mortgage. About four months later, the appellant entered into an agreement of sale with respondents 3 to 9 for purchase of the h
6. Athinarayana Konar v. Subramania Iyer (1941) 2 M.L.J. 722 : (1941) 54 L.W. 474.
11. Ayyasami Pilial v. Subbaraya Pillai (1983) 96 L.W. 261.
16. Kalidasa Chetti v. Dodda Sidha Chetti (1946) 2 M.L.J. 110 : A.I.R. 1947 Mad. 56 : 59 L.W. 409.
19. Pechaiya v. Vellaimuthu Velan 48 M.L.J. 405 : A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 639.
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.