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

1944 Supreme(Mad) 292

CHANDRASEKHARA.AIYAR
A. Kulandaivelu Pillai – Appellant
Versus
Sowbagyammal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He purchased the property at an auction held by the Official Receiver on 20th December, 1927. The defendant is a purchaser of the same property on 25th April, 1940, in execution of a charge decree in her favour of the year 1911. At first, the suit was only for an injunction but later a prayer for possession was added on the ground that the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff. The District Munsiff decreed the plaintiffs suit holding that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the charge decree in execution of which the defendant purchased the property. But on appeal the Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiffs suit not because the plaintiff was not such a bona fide purchaser but on the ground that the plaintiffs purchase from the Official Receiver was affected by the doctrine of lis pendens. The Us Q.S. No. 44 of 1911, fructified into a charge decree for maintenance on 30th September, 1913. It is for some arrears due under this decree that the suit property was brought to sale and purchased by the defendant (who is herself the decree-holder). To O.S. No. 44 of 1911, the insolvents were parties. I






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