Just a moment...
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 the revenue authorities were justified in refusing to proceed with partition under section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act on the ground that title was in dispute, when the transferees acquired the property during pendency of the civil suit and claimed to be bona fide purchasers without notice.
Analysis: A transfer made during the pendency of litigation attracts the doctrine of lis pendens under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. In such a situation, the question of the transferee's good faith or absence of notice is irrelevant for the purpose of protecting the transfer under sections 41 or 51 of the Transfer of Property Act. The subsequent purchasers, having bought the property during the pendency of the civil proceedings, were bound by the decree obtained by the petitioner. Once that decree and the resulting sale deed were in place, no surviving question of title remained between the petitioner and the subsequent vendees so as to justify withholding partition proceedings.
Conclusion: The refusal to proceed on the basis of an alleged title dispute was unjustified, and the petitioner was entitled to have the partition application decided according to law.
Ratio Decidendi: A transferee pendente lite is bound by the result of the litigation, and in such cases the plea of bona fide purchase without notice cannot defeat the decree or be used to resist relief in subsequent proceedings.