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

2007 Supreme(All) 2487

TARUN AGARWALA
VIDYAWATI – Appellant
Versus
LALA RAM – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Manoj Misra for the Appellant; R.P. Misra and B.B. Paul for the Respondents.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court held that due to attachment and Section 64 CPC, the sale-deed in favor of the plaintiff was void, illegal and inoperative. (!) (!) - The court found that the plaintiff was not a bonafide purchaser for value and that the suit was filed malafidely to defraud the decree-holder; hence the suit was dismissed. (!) (!) - The court held that the plaintiff, not being a party to the original suit or execution, could not file an objection under Section 47 CPC, and Rule 89 was not applicable; thus the suit was not barred by Order 21 Rule 92 CPC and was maintainable in the surrounding context, but ultimately dismissed on merits. (!) (!) (!) (!)

What is the status of the sale-deed in view of attachment and Section 64 CPC?

What is the court’s finding on whether the plaintiff was a bonafide purchaser for value?

What is the court’s ruling on whether the suit was maintainable under Order 21 Rule 92 and Section 47 CPC?


JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The plaintiff Smt. Vidyawati filed a suit against Lala Ram and Chotey Lal for the cancellation of the sale-deed executed in favour of Lala Ram in execution case No. 3 of 1976 arising out of original suit No. 57 of 1972 with regard to plot No. 218 having an area of 8.14 acres. The ground alleged by the plaintiff was that she was a bonafide purchaser for value which she had purchased from defendant No. 2, Chotey Lal on the basis of three sale-deeds dated 31.10.1975, 20.4.1976 and 23.2.1977 and that her name was mutated in the revenue records. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had knowledge about the execution of the sale-deeds in her favour inspite of which he had concealed this fact and, in collusion with the defendant No. 2, fraudulently got the sale-deed executed in execution proceedings. The plaintiff alleged that upon coming to know of the sale made by the defendants in execution proceedings, she had filed the present suit for the cancellation of the sale-deed. The plaintiff further contended that at the time when the decree was put in execution, the defendant No. 2 was no longer the owner and consequently the property could not be attac


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top