<?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>1986 (4) TMI 367 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305932</link>
    <description>A transfer made during pending litigation is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, so the transferee&#039;s asserted good faith or lack of notice does not protect the purchase under sections 41 or 51. Purchasers who acquired the property while the civil suit was pending were bound by the decree obtained by the original claimant, and the resulting sale deed left no surviving title dispute between the parties. On that basis, refusing to proceed with partition on the ground of disputed title was unjustified, and the partition application had to be decided according to law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2022 15:41:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=700290" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (4) TMI 367 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305932</link>
      <description>A transfer made during pending litigation is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, so the transferee&#039;s asserted good faith or lack of notice does not protect the purchase under sections 41 or 51. Purchasers who acquired the property while the civil suit was pending were bound by the decree obtained by the original claimant, and the resulting sale deed left no surviving title dispute between the parties. On that basis, refusing to proceed with partition on the ground of disputed title was unjustified, and the partition application had to be decided according to law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305932</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>