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

1923 Supreme(Mad) 357

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Vedachari
Versus
Narasimha Mudali And Ors.
Decided On : 4 October, 1923

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of lis pendens to suits for specific performance of agreements to sell immoveable properties.

Headnote:

doctrine of lis pendens - suits for specific performance of agreements to sell immoveable properties - The court held that the doctrine of lis pendens applies to suits for specific performance of agreements to sell immoveable properties, as well as to suits for possession of immoveable properties. The principle underlying the doctrine also applies to Court sales.

Fact of the Case:

The court referenced the rulings in Matilal Pal v. Preo Lall Mitra and Jahar Lal Bhutra v. Bhupendra Nath Basu to support the application of the doctrine of lis pendens to suits for specific performance of agreements to sell immoveable properties.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the doctrine of lis pendens applies to suits for specific performance of agreements to sell immoveable properties, and that the decision of the lower appellate Court was right.

Issues: The issue was whether the doctrine of lis pendens applies to suits for specific performance of agreements to sell immoveable properties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the rulings in previous cases and the principle underlying the doctrine of lis pendens to support its decision.

Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal was dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

1. Following the ruling in Matilal Pal v. Preo Lall Mitra (1911) 13 C.W.N. 226 and Jahar Lal Bhutra v. Bhupendra Nath Basu (1922) I.L.R. 49 C. 495, we hold that the doctrine of lis pendens applies as regards suits for specific performance of agreements to sell immoveable properties just as much as to suits for possession of immoveable properties. As observed by Mookerjee, J. in the latter case, "The obvious reason for this is that if when the jurisdiction of the Court was once attached, it could be ousted by the transfer of the defendants interest, there would be no end to litigation and justice would be defeated." That the principle underlying the doctrine applies to Court sales such as we have to deal with here, has also been held. The decision of the lower appellate Court is therefore right; and the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top