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

2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34385

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.V. BHATTI, BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JJ
JUMAILATH BEEVI – Appellant
Versus
RAJEENA – Respondent


Advocates:
SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW SRI.JEPH JOSEPH, SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30th day of July, 2020 Bechu Kurian Thomas , J.

The scope of protection which a transferee pendente lite can seek from an executing court arises for consideration. The transferees pendente lite challenge the dismissal of their petition filed under Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 , (for brevity 'CPC').

2. Petitioners are transferees pendente lite. They had purchased 4.86 ares of property by Sale Deed No.1149/10 dated 8.7.2010 of the SRO Kadakkavur from respondents 3 and 4. Transferors of the petitioners are respondents 3 and 4, who had purchased the property from the 2nd respondent as per Sale Deed No.731/2008. According to the petitioners, it was only in 2015, that they came to know that the 1st respondent had secured sale certificate in E.P. No.23 of 2013, with respect to the scheduled property and even though, 1st respondent had legally ousted respondents 2 to 4, petitioners continued in physical possession and an application was filed as E.A. 100 of 2015 in E.P. No.23 of

2013 in O.P. No.1350 of 2008 under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC, to re- convey their rights and possession. However, by Ext. P8 order, the application was dismissed. This Origi

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