Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a person inducted as a tenant by a decree-holder can resist restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that he is a bona fide transferee with an independent right to remain in possession.
Analysis: Restitution restores to a party what has been taken away under a decree that is later set aside. A stranger auction purchaser stands on a different footing because his title is not derived from either party to the suit. A tenant inducted by the decree-holder, however, derives possession from the decree-holder and cannot claim an independent right to retain the benefit obtained under the reversed decree. The equitable protection recognized for bona fide auction purchasers does not extend to such a transferee from the decree-holder.
Conclusion: The objection of the transferee tenant was not sustainable and restitution of possession in favour of the appellant was warranted.
Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court was set aside and possession was directed to be restored to the appellant, subject to the result of the eviction proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi: A person who derives possession from a decree-holder cannot resist restitution after the decree is set aside by claiming the protection available to a stranger bona fide purchaser at an auction sale.