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