9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Civil P.C. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, the following facts deserve to be noticed. 2. On 19th Mar. 1958, the petitioner agreed to purchase the share of Kartar Singh son of Mit Singh in the suit land which he was holding jointly with Paramjit Singh and Jagjit Singh sons of Phula Singh in equal shares, i.e., one-third. As prior to the date of the performance of this agreement Paramjit Singh and Jagjit Singh purchased the share of Kartar Singh (one-third share in the joint holding), the petitioner filed a suit against them all, i.e., Kartar Singh, Paramjit Singh and Jagjit Singh for the specific performance of the agreement dt. l9th Mar. 1958. Though she failed in the trial Court yet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 44): In the face of this settled legal position, the plea raised on behalf of respondents 5 to 10 that they were bona fide purchasers without notice from Paramjit Singh and Jagjit Singh was obviously of no consequence. Respondents 5 to 10 having purchased the property from these two vendors during the pendency of the civil litigation against them are bound by the decree passed against them, i.e., the vendors and, in view of that, no question of title remained to be settled between the parties, i.e., the petitioner and the subsequent vendees. 4. At this stage it is urged by Mr. Ashok Bhan, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents, that subsequent to the passing of the impugned order by the Financial Commissioner (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Financial Commissioner some more points had been raised by the respondents in their revision petition before him. This plea of the learned counsel, again, does not appeal to me. The order, Annexure Pl, does not show that any contention other than the one adjudicated upon therein was raised before the Financial Commissioner. It was only in view of the contention raised by the respondents that there was a question of title involved in the case that their revision petition was allowed by the Financial Commissioner. As per the order passed by him no other plea appears to have been raised before him. 6. For the reasons recorded above, I allow this petition and while setting aside order Annexure Pl direct the authorities to proceed to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
