https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168276 Restitution under Section 144 CPC restores what was taken under a decree later set aside, and a transferee who derives possession from the decree-holder cannot resist that relief by claiming the protection available to a bona fide auction purchaser. The Court held that a tenant inducted by the decree-holder had no independent right to retain possession after reversal of the decree, because the tenant's possession was derived from the very party who benefited from the earlier decree. The objection to restitution was therefore rejected, and possession was directed to be restored, subject to the outcome of the eviction proceeding. en-us Wed, 09 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168276 Restitution under Section 144 CPC restores what was taken under a decree later set aside, and a transferee who derives possession from the decree-holder cannot resist that relief by claiming the protection available to a bona fide auction purchaser. The Court held that a tenant inducted by the decree-holder had no independent right to retain possession after reversal of the decree, because the tenant's possession was derived from the very party who benefited from the earlier decree. The objection to restitution was therefore rejected, and possession was directed to be restored, subject to the outcome of the eviction proceeding. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168276