Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR
Gunaseelan – Appellant
Versus
P.Perumal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details the procedural background and key events leading to the appeal. (Para 2) |
| 2. appellant argues against the validity of the attachment and asserts rights based on prior decree. (Para 3) |
| 3. court discussions regarding the implications of lis pendens and procedural requirements. (Para 4 , 6 , 10 , 13) |
| 4. the court confirmed the priority of the specific performance decree over the money decree. (Para 24) |
| 5. concluding remarks of the court on the final decision. (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT :
Challenging the order passed by the Executing Court under Order XXI Rule 97(1) and (2), the present appeal came to be filed.
2. Brief facts in filing this appeal are as follows:
2.a. The appellant has filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.24 of 2013 to enforce the agreement dated 23.05.2012 executed by one Sivakumar (deceased). The suit has been filed against the legal heirs of the said Sivakumar. Before filing the suit, he has issued a notice dated 24.01.2013. As the defendants in the above suit remained exparte, the suit was decreed on 11.09.2013. Pursuant to the said decree and judgment, Execution Petition in E.P.No.247 of 2013 was filed. During the pendency of the said EP, the
Pre-existing contracts for the sale of property hold precedence over subsequent attachments, reaffirming the principle of lis pendens in determining valid titles during concurrent proceedings.
During pendency in any court having authority within limits of India of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in ques....
Agreement to sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Once sale agreement is proved and subsequent sale was during pendency of suit hit by doctrine of lis pendens, decree for specific performance can b....
(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....
The doctrine of lis pendens does not affect prior subsisting rights, allowing innocent purchasers to enforce their claims based on preceding agreements.
The absence of explicit allegations of fraud in a Section 47 application results in dismissal, emphasizing the need for substantial claims against execution of decrees.
Doctrine of lis pendens applies to property transfer when an ongoing suit specifically involves that property.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
