Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI
Velpa International (P) Limited – Appellant
Versus
Priyadharshini – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision filed to set aside sale deed. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments for breach of undertaking by defendants. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. defendants' rebuttal on attachment notification. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. clarification of monetary claims and obligations. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's handling of affidavit and responsibilities. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. precedents on undertaking enforcement discussed. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. court's rationale for dismissing the application. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. doctrine of lis pendens applicability denied. (Para 24) |
| 9. final dismissal of civil revision petition. (Para 25) |
ORDER :
1. This revision has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.8 of 2016, seeking to set aside the order in I.A. No.1 of 2021, in and whereby, the plaintiff sought direction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside the sale deed dated 28.04.2021 in Doc.7359 of 2021 on the SRO, Palladam.
2. I have heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.V.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the fifth respondent.
3. The sum and substance of the ar
Undertakings not formally accepted by the court lack enforceability, rendering any subsequent breach insufficient for voiding a sale deed.
An unrecorded court undertaking is unenforceable; thus, third-party purchasers maintain rights over property sold despite alleged breaches of such undertaking.
A mere declaration that a sale deed is null and void is ineffectual; a plaintiff must seek to set aside the deed, which must be substantiated by evidence to oppose its presumptive validity.
An agreement to sell does not create an interest in property and does not breach an undertaking unless actual sale or transfer occurs.
Execution of an agreement to sell does not constitute a breach of court undertaking prohibiting sale unless actual transfer of property occurred.
Subsequent purchasers cannot assert defenses of the original vendor without seeking leave under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC, especially when the original sale deeds have been canceled.
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....
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
