9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ird, fourth and sixth respondents by two registered sale deeds dated 18.6.1999 and 21.6.1999 and they are the bonafide purchasers for the value and entitled for alienors' share in equity and therefore they are the necessary parties for effective adjudication of the dispute in O. S. No. 82 of 2004. The Principal District Judge, Thanjavur came to the conclusion that since the sales in favour of the petitioners were covered by the doctrine of lis pendens and since they can only have whether rights of their transferors had, it is not necessary to deal with their rights separately and dismissed the application. Against that the present revision has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the principles of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, who set aside the Court auction sale on 21.6.99 on the ground that the Court auction sale itself is vitiated by fraud, and therefore the contention of the petitioners that they are the bona fide purchasers cannot be accepted. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, that undoubtedly the purchases are hit by lis pendens and therefore Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act will apply in any event. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there was no justification warranting interference in revision. The learned counsel relied on the following judgments: 1. Amichand Aggarwal v. Nabi Hasan , AIR 2003 SCW 5858; 2. Raghavan v. M. Krishnammal , 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so arose out of suit for partition. In that case the preliminary decree was passed and an application was filed for passing of final decree, at that stage, one of the co-owners sold his undivided share to the third party. The Division Bench held that; Section 52 envisages that during pendency of any proceedings in Court property cannot be transferred so as to affect rights of other parties -- Section 52 imposes statutory bar of alienation of property which is subject matter of legal proceedings -- Prior permission of Court is necessary before such alienation -- Intention of legislation is that no party to proceedings can defeat claim of other party when other party succeeds in litigation -- Purchaser during pendency of legal proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drasekar, who is none other than the brother of Dhanalakshmi, the first respondent, herein. It appears that the respondents themselves filed I. A. No. 43 of 2001 to implead the petitioners but subsequently, it was dismissed. The aforesaid G. Chandrasekar filed E. A. No. 98 of 2000 in E. P. No. 34 of 1998 under Order 21, Rule 95 for possession. E. A. No. 103 of 2000 was filed by the respondent and that E. A. was ordered recording that the witnesses did not come to Court to give evidence and the document alone was produced before the Court and the and ors. passed in the E. A formed part of the Order passed in the main E. A., namely E. A. No. 98 of 2000. E. A. No. 98 of 2000 was dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur on the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
