TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses Plaintiff's suit, upholds ex-parte decree. Fraud not proven, clean hands lacking. Ownership claims denied.</h1> <h3>L. Mohanam Versus Mohamed Idris and Ors.</h3> The court dismissed the Plaintiff's suit, upholding the ex-parte decree in favor of the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff failed to prove fraud or ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the 1st Defendant has a redeemable right over the plaint schedule property.2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of absolute ownership of the suit property.3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to cancel the ex-parte decree dated 14.06.2006 in O.S. No. 9869/1990 due to alleged misrepresentation by the 1st Defendant.4. Whether the Plaintiff approached the Court with clean hands.5. Whether the 1st Defendant has the title and right to convey the property to Defendants 2 and 3.6. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction to protect possession over the suit property.7. Whether the subsequent sale by the 1st Defendant to Defendants 2 and 3 during the suit is hit by the doctrine of 'lis pendens' and therefore non-est in law.8. Whether the suit is within the time of limitation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Redeemable Right Over the Property:The court found that the 1st Defendant (Mohamed Idris) had a redeemable right over the property. The Plaintiff's (Mohanam) claim that the 1st Defendant lost this right due to a valid sale to Ziauddin was not upheld. The sale was subject to the pending suit (O.S. No. 9869/1990), and thus, the 1st Defendant retained the redeemable right.2. Declaration of Absolute Ownership:The Plaintiff's request for a declaration of absolute ownership was denied. The court held that the sale to the Plaintiff was during the pendency of the suit and thus subject to the doctrine of lis pendens. The Plaintiff failed to prove that the ex-parte decree declaring the sale to Ziauddin null and void was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.3. Cancellation of Ex-Parte Decree:The court dismissed the Plaintiff's claim to cancel the ex-parte decree dated 14.06.2006 in O.S. No. 9869/1990. The Plaintiff did not provide specific and detailed allegations of fraud or misrepresentation as required under Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court found no evidence of deliberate misrepresentation or fraud by the 1st Defendant.4. Clean Hands:The court concluded that the Plaintiff did not approach the court with clean hands. The Plaintiff failed to comply with the court's cost order in C.R.P.(PD) No. 54/2005 and chose to file a separate suit instead of paying the cost, indicating bad faith.5. Title and Right to Convey Property:The court upheld that the 1st Defendant had the title and right to convey the property to Defendants 2 and 3. The Plaintiff's claim that the 1st Defendant was a stranger to the property and had no right to convey it was rejected.6. Permanent Injunction:The Plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction to protect possession over the suit property was denied. The court found that the Plaintiff's possession was subject to the outcome of the earlier suit, and thus, he was not entitled to the injunction.7. Doctrine of Lis Pendens:The court held that the sale by the 1st Defendant to Defendants 2 and 3 during the pendency of the suit was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. Therefore, the sale was subject to the outcome of the litigation and did not affect the Plaintiff's rights.8. Limitation:The court found that the suit was within the time of limitation. The Plaintiff's claims were not barred by any statutory limitations.Conclusion:The court dismissed the Plaintiff's suit and upheld the ex-parte decree in favor of the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff failed to establish fraud or misrepresentation and did not comply with court orders, indicating a lack of clean hands. The Plaintiff's claims for ownership, cancellation of the decree, and injunction were all denied, and the sale to Defendants 2 and 3 was deemed subject to the doctrine of lis pendens. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
