» Uncategorized » Agreement To Sale During Pendency Of Suit

Agreement To Sale During Pendency Of Suit

16.1. It is recalled that the High Court has, however, shaped the exemption in such a way that a particular benefit has been granted in the event of an increase in the underperformance of sales, and it has also been ordered that the present complainants (subsequent purchasers) make the same payment to the applicants if the applicants do not make the payment within two months to “confirm their ownership of the land of appeal”. However, with regard to this crucial aspect of the issue, it would appear that the High Court has neglected the other relevant provisions of the 1963 Act and has not asversed whether the type of alternative remedy would meet the objectives of justice. 2.2. On the other hand, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 of that action had been the original defendant Nos. 1 to 3 of the action at issue. Respondent No. 1 (Respondent No. 3) has expired and its legal representatives are considered Respondents Nos. 3a to 3d in this appeal.

The agreements which were the subject of that dispute were executed by defendant Nos 1 to 3 (seller) in favour of applicant Nos 1 to 3 (Vendees). In Rajendra Singh v. Santa Singh,[24] it was decided that this doctrine was intended to reduce the parties to an appeal, to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court by private transactions that may remove the subject matter of the dispute from the Tribunal`s power to rule on an ongoing dispute and thwart its decree. [25] 12.1. We have examined in detail the copies of the above-mentioned agreements of 20.09.1965 and 28.04.1966, as presented to us for consultation. In the initial agreement of 20.09.1965, the sellers had indicated, after indicating the area, the survey number and the boundaries of the land in question: – 17. In the case of Savitri Devi v. Judge District, Gorakhpur and Others. (1999) 2 SCC 577, a three-judge chamber of this tribunal considered a similar matter in accordance with Order 1 paragraph 10 CPC. The fact is that the complainant brought an action for maintenance and the creation of a tax on ancestral property.

She also sought an injunction that prevented her sons from transferring the property for the duration of the appeal. But a Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the defendants and the 4th accused also filed an affidavit claiming to be on behalf of the defendants and expressed concern that the property of the complaint would not be sold during the duration of the proceedings. In the light of the lawyer`s agreement, the General Court issued an order on 18.08.1992 ordering the parties not to transfer the disputed property until the appeal had been assigned. Moreover, the objective of the suspension would be null and nereal if dishonest lawyers merely compelled the other party to file cases concerning the other party`s immovable property and thus benefit from the prohibition referred to in Article 52. . . .

Written by

Filed under: Uncategorized

Articles Comments

Web Design by Actualize Solutions