Problem
Mnselvaraaj
(Querist) 16 November 2011
This query is : Resolved
"A" filed specific performance suit against "B" when suit is pending "B" gave GPA for the disputed property to "C" suppressing the fact of the suit property subsequently "C" entered into sale agreement with "D". "B", "C" and "D" are become collusive. "D" filed separate suit for the relief. B and C set expartee "D" obtained expartee decree. After knowing the fact "A" filed an I.A to include "C"and D"as party to the suit. I.A allowed, trail started "C" and "D' set expartee. "B" contested. Suit was decreed in favour of "A" with relief of permanent injunction not to alienate or encumber the suit property. After the death of "D" subsequently LRs of "D" sold the suit property to third party when suit is pending in apex court. To drag the matter "B" filed appeal challenging the judgment passed in favour of "A" by the lower court. Now subsequent purchaser is in possession of suit property and enjoying the benefits from the property. Now what will be the consequences.
What is the remedy to "A"?
Subsequent purchaser is trying to alienate the suit property. What is the action to avoid further alienation? Any provision in CPC to encumber the suit property till the disposal of suit and arrest the income from the suit property to the subsequent purchaser.
regards
SUNDARAM
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 16 November 2011
Law of Lis pendence is applicable i such matters which means the subsequent parties are bound by the fate of their predecessor in interest and ultimately last buyer shall be sufferer. Possession shall have to be delivered by him against order passed in execution petition.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 16 November 2011
where are you lcated?
if you are in maharashtra and have registered the pendency of suit under section 18 of registration act the property after the notice is so registered cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the court and on such terms as it may impose.
2) Every notice of pendency of a suit or proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) shall contain the following particulars, namely:-
(a) the name and address of the owner of immoveable property or other person whose right to the immoveable property in question;
(b) the description of the immoveable property the right to which is in question;
(c) the court in which the suit or proceeding is pending;
(d) the nature and title of the suit or proceeding; and
(e) the date on which the suit or proceeding was instituted
ajay sethi
(Expert) 16 November 2011
In Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami (AIR 1973 SC 569) this court held that the purpose of Section 52 of the Act is not to defeat any just and equitable claim, but only to subject them to the authority of the court which is dealing with the property to which claims are put forward. This court in Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (2007) 2 SCC 404 held that Section 52 of the Act does not declare a pendente lite transfer by a party to the suit as void or illegal, but only makes the pendente lite purchaser bound by the decision in the pending litigation
in your case if D sells the property and ulimately you win the case the purchaser will have to deliver the property to A
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 16 November 2011
No other view i would like take than those expressed here.
Shailesh Kr. Shah
(Expert) 17 November 2011
I have also no other view than those expressed here.
