Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (12) TMI 559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pendente lite is bound by the decree just as much as he was a party to the suit. The principle of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of the T.P. Act being a principle of public policy, no question of good faith or bona fide arises. The principle underlying Section 52 is that a litigating party is exempted from taking notice of a title acquired during the pendency of the litigation. The mere pendency of a suit does not prevent one of the parties from dealing with the property constituting the subject matter of the suit. The Section only postulates a condition that the alienation will in no manner affect the rights of the other party under any decree which may be passed in the suit unless the property was alienated with the permission of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... declaration was sought for to the effect that said defendant No. 1 had no right to execute four sale deeds in favour of defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5. Permanent injunction was also sought for restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. 4. During the pendency of the suit an application in terms of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was filed on behalf of appellant for temporary injunction. Learned Subordinate Judge-I, Dhanbad granted temporary injunction in favour of the appellant. After the order of injunction was passed, Smt. Vinaya Devi, Defendant (respondent No. 4 herein) transferred a portion of suit land in favour of one Mihir Kumar Chakraborty by Sale Deed dated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... red the effect of the fact that the respondents' vendors are not parties to the suit and there was no representation of the writ petitioners and their vendors in the suit. 6. In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the effect of Section 52 of the T.P. Act has been completely lost sight of. Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that plaintiff Sanjay is none other than the son of late M.M. Sharma, who was an advocate who had appeared for defendant Rajeshwari Devi in a suit for specific performance which was decreed in favour of said Rajeshwari Devi on 23.12.1986. A few days thereafter taking advantage of the professional relationship between late Sh. M.M. Sharma, father of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... leadment in the suit which was in the instant case pending for a very long time. In fact in para 10 of the judgment this Court has held that there is absolutely no rule that the transferee pendente lite without leave of the Court should in all cases contest the pending suit. In Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh and Ors. (1996)5SCC539 it was observed in para 6 as follows: 6. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act envisages that: During the pendency in any court having authority within the limits of India... of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceedi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... takes the obvious risk that the suit may not be properly conducted by the plaintiff on record, and yet, as pointed out by Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Moti Lal v. Karrabuldin ILR (1898) 25 Cal 179 he will be bound by the result of the litigation even though he is not represented at the hearing unless it is shown that the litigation was not properly conducted by the original party or he colluded with the adversary. It is also plain that if the person who has acquired an interest by devolution, obtains leave to carry on the suit, the suit in his hands is not a new suit, for, as Lord Kingsdown of the Judicial Committee said in Prannath Roy Chowdry v. Rookea Begum (1857) 7 MIA 323, a cause of action is not prolonged by mere tran .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates