<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1982 (12) TMI 226 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305852</link>
    <description>A transferee pendente lite takes the property subject to the result of the pending litigation and acquires no better title than the transferor. The doctrine of lis pendens applied to a transfer made during a redemption suit, so the transferee remained bound by the decree passed against the transferor even though impleadment was sought. The earlier money decree did not create a surviving charge that could defeat the redemption proceedings, and the plea of adverse possession failed because no independent hostile title could arise on those facts. The principle was treated as applicable to inter vivos transfers as well as court sales, leaving the transferee unable to resist execution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2022 18:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=699950" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (12) TMI 226 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305852</link>
      <description>A transferee pendente lite takes the property subject to the result of the pending litigation and acquires no better title than the transferor. The doctrine of lis pendens applied to a transfer made during a redemption suit, so the transferee remained bound by the decree passed against the transferor even though impleadment was sought. The earlier money decree did not create a surviving charge that could defeat the redemption proceedings, and the plea of adverse possession failed because no independent hostile title could arise on those facts. The principle was treated as applicable to inter vivos transfers as well as court sales, leaving the transferee unable to resist execution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305852</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>