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 grants partition, sets aside order, directs action under Punjab Land Revenue Act. Lis pendens binds subsequent purchasers.</h1> <h3>Balwinderjit Kaur Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab and Ors.</h3> The court allowed the petition, set aside the order of the Financial Commissioner rejecting the partition application, and directed authorities to proceed ... - Issues:Impugning order of Financial Commissioner rejecting partition under Punjab Land Revenue Act due to title question. Applicability of doctrine of lis pendens in case of transfer during civil litigation. Validity of subsequent order by Assistant Collector directing petitioner to go to Civil Court. Request for remitting the case back to Financial Commissioner for fresh decision.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner rejecting her partition application under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, citing a title dispute. The petitioner had previously won a decree for specific performance against the respondents, who had transferred the land in question to third parties during the civil litigation. The court emphasized the doctrine of lis pendens, stating that subsequent purchasers during ongoing litigation are bound by any decrees against the original vendors. The court dismissed the argument of good faith by the subsequent purchasers, emphasizing that the title issue was settled by the earlier decree. The court rejected the validity of the Assistant Collector's subsequent order directing the petitioner to go to the Civil Court, noting that it was a consequential order based on the now-set-aside order of the Financial Commissioner.The respondents requested remitting the case back to the Financial Commissioner for further consideration, claiming additional points were raised in their revision petition. However, the court found no merit in this request, as the original order did not indicate any other contentions raised before the Financial Commissioner. Therefore, the court allowed the petition, set aside the order of the Financial Commissioner, and directed the authorities to proceed with the petitioner's partition application under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The petitioner was also awarded costs of litigation amounting to Rs. 500.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
