Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK GUPTA
Shashi Gupta (Deceased) Through Her Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Narinder Kumar Sood (Deceased) Through His Lrs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Gupta, J.
This order shall dispose of two Civil Revisions titled above, as both of them pertain to the same property, and the dispute is between the same parties.
2. Before taking up the impugned orders as have been challenged by way of these petitions, it would be apt to mention the status of parties before courts below and also certain brief facts of the case. To avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court concerned.
3 Narinder Kumar Sood (respondent No.l herein through his legal representatives) was the plaintiff before the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 590 of 1994 titled 'Narinder vs. Goverdhan'. Goverdhan Dutt (respondent No.2 through his legal representatives herein) was the defendant before the trial Court in this suit. He was the owner of the property in dispute. Smt. Shashi Gupta (petitioner herein through her legal representatives) is the third party objector.
4. The perusal of paper book & trial court record reveals that based upon an agreement to sell dated 07.12.1990, plaintiff Narinder Kumar Sood instituted the above Civil Suit No.590 of 1994 on 08.09.1994 for specific performance regarding suit property against d
A bona fide purchaser who acquires property during the pendency of litigation is barred from contesting the execution of a decree against the prior owner.
A purchaser of property during the pendency of a suit has no right to resist or obstruct the execution of a decree, as per Order XXI Rule 102 and the doctrine of lis pendens.
Bonafide purchasers without notice of an original agreement can challenge a decree in a separate suit, as the Execution Court cannot adjudicate on the decree's collusiveness.
A transferee pendente lite cannot maintain an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, and the executing court must prioritize res judicata objections before proceeding.
A transferee pendente lite has no right to resist the decree under Order XXI, Rules 97 and 101 of the CPC.
A subsequent purchaser cannot assert rights against a prior decree holder, as established by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a bonafide purchaser, not being the decree holder and not having been dispossessed of the property, is not entitled to raise objections under ....
Objection to execution of decree – Appellant who is a bonafide purchaser of property and not decree holder, cannot take shelter of Rule 97 of CPC to raise objections against execution of decree passe....
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
