LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Jimmy Christian   17 June 2018

bonafide purchaser

Sir I buy 338squre meter land after all kind of inquiry in 2004 and I also see all kind of documents before buying this non agriculture land.after purchase I made my entry in city sarvey in 2004..thenĀ  now in 2018 I come to know that the seller already sell 57 square meter land in 1993 to other party .now other party made claim on me.he made CTS in collector office Gujrat..sir I have already try my best to serch his title but I find this land title already clear..now have big problem what can do to protect my land and my rights?? Kindly help me


Learning

 12 Replies

Kumar Doab (FIN)     17 June 2018

'Buyer Beware' applies to property deals.

It shall be appropriate to get proper legal opinion from a very able LOCAL senior counsel of unshakable repute and integrity specializing in revenue/property/civil/DRT matters and well versed with LOCAL applicable rules/laws and having successful track record…. and worth his/her salt , before signing or making payment.

This may cost some FEE but can defend long term interest and hard earned monies.

 

 

Kumar Doab (FIN)     17 June 2018

Hope you have the documentary evidence of proper inquiry made by you.

Qui Prior Est Tempore, Potior Est Jure

Latin: ‘he who is earlier in time is stronger in law.’

https://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/Q/QuiPriorEstTemporePotiorEstJure.aspx

1 Like

Kumar Doab (FIN)     17 June 2018

GO thru;

 

 

Central Government Act

The Transfer of Property Act, 1882; 41, 47,48,49,51

41. Transfer by ostensible owner.—Where, with the consent, express or implied, of the persons interested in immoveable property, a person is the ostensible owner of such property and transfers the same for consideration, the transfer shall not be voidable on the ground that the transferor was not authorised to make it: provided that the transferee, after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had power to make the transfer, has acted in good faith.

48. Priority of rights created by transfer.—Where a person purports to create by transfer at different times rights in or over the same immoveable property, and such rights cannot all exist or be exercised to their full extent together, each later created right shall, in the absence of a special contract or reservation binding the earlier transferees, be subject to the rights previously created.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/515323/

The transferor cannot prejudice the rights of the transferee by any subsequent dealing with the property.

Kumar Doab (FIN)     17 June 2018

And

GO thru;

Andhra High Court

The State Of Andhra Pradesh ... vs Rajah Ram Janardhana Krishna ... on 7 April, 1965

Equivalent citations: AIR 1966 AP 233, 1966 36 CompCas 950 AP

Author: Venkatesam

Bench: C Sastry, Venkatesam

That being so, the mortgage debenture holders are entitled to the priority and be paid in full before the Government are entitled to claim any portion of the sale proceeds in the hands of the official liquidator.

37. In the result all the contentions fall and the appeal is dismissed with costs of the contesting respondents one set. The costs shall he shared by the first respondent and the 3rd respondent in the proportion of 2:1.

 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1231468/

Kumar Doab (FIN)     17 June 2018

Supreme Court of India

Har Narain (D) By Lrs vs Mam Chand (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 8 October, 2010

Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan

17. In view of the above, we reach the inescapable conclusion that the sale executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 on 2.8.1971 could not be termed as a complete sale until the document got registered on 3.9.1971. In view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, 1908 the effect of registration would be that registration would relate back to the date of execution but it does not mean that sale would be complete in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 prior to 3.9.1971 i.e. the date of registration of the sale deed. In view of the above, as sale stood completed during the pendency of the suit, doctrine of lis pendens is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The courts below failed to appreciate that the fiction created by Section 47 of the Act 1908, itself is a consequence of 
 registration of the sale deed. More so, as the appellant had been in possession of the suit land being a mortgagee since 1970 and this fact had also been mentioned by the respondent No.1 in the sale deed dated 2.8.1971 in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 6, the question of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 being bonafide purchasers for value and paid money in good faith without notice does not arise, simply for the reason that the said respondents were fully aware that the suit land was in possession of the appellant. Thus, the respondents No.2 to 6 cannot take the benefit of the provisions of Section 19(b) of the Act, 1963.

 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1607832/

Kumar Doab (FIN)     17 June 2018

 

As per your post you have taken due precaution, made inquiry, and nothing was discovered during due diligence….inquiry………..

And probably the 1sy buyer was not in possession..

This may …..may favor you.

Since your money, title, possession is being threatened by case filed….. approach a very able LOCAL senior counsels of unshakable repute and integrity specializing in revenue/civil  matters  and well versed with latest citations, LOCAL applicable rules/laws/ revenue codes… and having successful track record…. and worth his/her salt…..and show the case related docs etc etc

Check at LOCAL courts for such counsels..

Jimmy Christian   17 June 2018

he buy land in 1993 but I even check the city survey records that mentione in 1997 this land is survey by city survey office and he confirmed buy his self that original seller is real owenr of this land and city survey officer make maps of land and he also make property card in fevers of original seller in 1997 then I buy this land 2004 and new property card provided me and removed original seller name....I have all kind important documents

Kumar Doab (FIN)     17 June 2018

Approach your LOCAL counsel with everything that you have and contest the matter with full might.

Wish you the best.

Jimmy Christian   17 June 2018

thanks fore your wonderful response god bless you sir....

Kumar Doab (FIN)     17 June 2018

Approach a very able senior counsel at your location or at jurisdictional HC...

You are welcome..

 

Jimmy Christian   17 June 2018

sir I have only one question. are there any changes to winning this case??tell me in percentage? because I have all kind of documents and I have full faith in law

Jimmy Christian   17 June 2018

can we use limitations act 1963.. because the real owenr not make any enty since 1993 not even in muncipal office,not even in revenue office and not even in city survey office not even in 7/12 he is sleeping since 1993 already 25 years

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads



Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query