Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Santosh Awasthi – Appellant
Versus
Urmila Jain – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents.
2. This writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi in Civil Revision No. 59 of 2024.
3. Facts, in brief, leading to filing of present petition are that one Malti Devi was the original owner of property in question. She had sold 1.8 Acres of land to one Roop Chand Jain, which includes the property in dispute. On 03.12.1976 Roop Chand Jain carved out different plots from the property purchased by him and sold one part to one Sushila Kumari, wife of Ram Narayan. In the sale deed plot number was mentioned as ‘767’.
4. Similarly, on 20.05.1979 Urmila Jain purchased an area of 9 decimal of plot no. 776 from Malti Devi. She also purchased plot nos. 771, 770, 772, 773, 774, 775, 768 and 766 total measuring 2.5 Acres. Sushila Kumari expired some time in the year 1986, she was survived by her husband Ram Narayan Verma and sons Naveen Prakash, Anand Prakash, Ratnesh Verma and Rajesh Verma. Urmila Jain filed a suit for per
The doctrine of lis pendens bars a transferee pendente lite from maintaining an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, ensuring that any transfer during litigation is subservient to the outcome of ....
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 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 doctrine of lis pendens applies to subsequent purchasers; their rights are subordinate to those of the decree holder in a specific performance case.
A transferee pendente lite has no right to resist the decree under Order XXI, Rules 97 and 101 of the CPC.
(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....
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.
The Court emphasized the importance of summary determination of questions under Rule 101 of Order XXI of the C.P.C. and the applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It also clarif....
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
