Property sold before final decree
S.Surendra Sharma Sharma
(Querist) 17 June 2018
This query is : Resolved
Sir/sirs To make a long story short: 3/4 of a building was sold surreptitiously by my kin just after the preliminary decree ruling that I have a claim for 1/4 of the share. My kin are absentee claimants. Therfore they sold their 3/4 of the share to a third party for a throwaway price of Rs.12 lakhs - a property that would fetch nearly a crore in 2004! Now the third party claims the 3/4 of the property(building) and asked the lower Court to pass a final decree in his favour as he is the purchaser! Is he entitled to claim as the buyer during this pendency period(final decree)? What doe the law say? Please enlighten me.
Vijay Raj Mahajan
(Expert) 17 June 2018
The question that arise here if there was any stay or injunction order passed by the court along with the interim decree that the status of the property as a whole shall not be disturbed no transfer of any portion of the property will be done by any party to the suit or who has claim in the property?
I'm sure there was no such stay or injunction order passed nor that was prayed by you. Had that be done there would not have been any transfer of 3/4 portion of the property done by your kin to another outside party who by the sale became lawful owner of the 3/4 portion of the property and are now seeking decree in their favour from the court declaring lawful owner of the 3/4 portion of the property that was legally purchased by them.
Now this was fault of your lawyer not for getting the stay/injunction order for not disturbing the status of the whole property by anyone till the final decree is passed by the court.
You cannot get any positive result objecting to the application/petition of the outside party seeking decree with regard to 3/4 portion of the property as lawful owner.
Rather after getting that decree this outside party will open deal with you to sell your portion to them at very nominal price as was done by your kin in 2004.
K Rajasekharan
(Expert) 17 June 2018
No law prevents anybody from selling his own part of the property during the pendency of a case relating to it, as per the legal principle doctrine of lis pendens.
The only problem is the court order will be binding on the new purchaser too.
The transfer, however, should in no way infringe any right of the other party in the suit as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Guest
(Expert) 17 June 2018
Well Advised and Agree with Expert/Advocate Mr.K.Rajasekharan
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Respectfully I disagree with the opinion and advise of experts Mr. Vijay Raj Mahajan and Mr. K Rajashekharan.
Even if there was no injunction obtained/granted and the defendant(s) remained absent and proceeded ex-parte (which has been presumed by the experts but not explained by author) status quo has to be maintained by both the parties to the suit (for partition) otherwise it would attract lis pendens and the sale transaction made by other claimant(s)/defendant(s)/share holder(s) shall be declared invalid and illegal.
Your lawyer may be requested to take appropriate action.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Dear Querist, Please Refer the" Doctrine Of Lis Pendens" to confirm the opinion of experts which is objected.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
When there is No Stay on Property the Transfer of the Same will not be objected but it will have binding on Court's Final Orders.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Merely agreeing with different opinions of experts reveals lack of any expertise and knowledge on your part.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Merely agreeing with different opinions of experts reveals lack of any expertise and knowledge on your part.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Merely agreeing with different opinions of experts reveals lack of any expertise and knowledge on your part.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Merely agreeing with different opinions of experts reveals lack of any expertise and knowledge on your part.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Merely agreeing with different opinions of experts reveals lack of any expertise and knowledge on your part.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Merely agreeing with different opinions of experts reveals lack of any expertise and knowledge on your part.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Merely agreeing with different opinions of experts reveals lack of any expertise and knowledge on your part.
Vijay Raj Mahajan
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Important to note the transfer of property by defendant that affects the right of the plaintiff in the property, but in this case the defendant only transferred his 3/4 share that was already decided by the court while confirming 1/4 share of the property belongs to the plaintiff through its decree. Section 52 of TPA should be read and understood completely for doctrine of Lis Pendens as propounded by the Supreme Court.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Surreptitiously or otherwise, decree is decree in his favour, he can make take advantage of that, may be for a petty compensation. On the contrary, you have not made clear, how you treat the decree as preliminary decree and on what conditions that was granted by the court and further, on what ground you think that your kin should have waited for the assumed final decree?
SO, YOUR OWN DESCRIPTION IS DOUBTFUL making room for assumptions and presumptions for inviting varied views of the experts.
Better make the issue clear, if you want some purposeful opinion.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Surreptitiously or otherwise, decree is decree in his favour, he can make take advantage of that, may be for a petty compensation. On the contrary, you have not made clear, how you treat the decree as preliminary decree and on what conditions that was granted by the court and further, on what ground you think that your kin should have waited for the assumed final decree?
SO, YOUR OWN DESCRIPTION IS DOUBTFUL making room for assumptions and presumptions for inviting varied views of the experts.
Better make the issue clear, if you want some purposeful opinion.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Surreptitiously or otherwise, decree is decree in his favour, he can make take advantage of that, may be for a petty compensation. On the contrary, you have not made clear, how you treat the decree as preliminary decree and on what conditions that was granted by the court and further, on what ground you think that your kin should have waited for the assumed final decree?
SO, YOUR OWN DESCRIPTION IS DOUBTFUL making room for assumptions and presumptions for inviting varied views of the experts.
Better make the issue clear, if you want some purposeful opinion.
Vijay Raj Mahajan
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Another issue here is that the suit was proceeded Ex-parte against the defendant, so why to say it was interim order, for all purpose it will be final decree and for what reason the suit continued when share of the plaintiff got decided by court for which the declaration suit filled. There should be end of unnecessary litigation between parties, that's the whole idea propounding various doctrines.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Mr. Vijay Raj Mahajan, Mr. K.Rajasekhran...has exerted for you.
You should be happy and satisfied with their posts.
Ms.Usha Kapoor
(Expert) 19 June 2018
I agree with VijayRajMahajan and Raja Sekharan.
