1986 (4) TMI 367

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e himself constituting into a Court or by the Civil Court under the Civil P.C. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, the following facts deserve to be noticed. 2. On 19th Mar. 1958, the petitioner agreed to purchase the share of Kartar Singh son of Mit Singh in the suit land which he was holding jointly with Paramjit Singh and Jagjit Singh sons of Phula Singh in equal shares, i.e., one-third. As prior to the date of the performance of this agreement Paramjit Singh and Jagjit Singh purchased the share of Kartar Singh (one-third share in the joint holding), the petitioner filed a suit against them all, i.e., Kartar Singh, Paramjit Singh and Jagjit Singh for the specific performance of the agreement dt. l9t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shanu Ram v. Basheshar Nath (1966) 68 Pun LR (D) 44): In the face of this settled legal position, the plea raised on behalf of respondents 5 to 10 that they were bona fide purchasers without notice from Paramjit Singh and Jagjit Singh was obviously of no consequence. Respondents 5 to 10 having purchased the property from these two vendors during the pendency of the civil litigation against them are bound by the decree passed against them, i.e., the vendors and, in view of that, no question of title remained to be settled between the parties, i.e., the petitioner and the subsequent vendees. 4. At this stage it is urged by Mr. Ashok Bhan, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents, that subsequent to the passing of the impugn....