| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/656604 |
| Subject | Property |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Decided On | Nov-25-1986 |
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 280 of 1973 |
| Judge | G.L. Oza and; Ranganath Misra, JJ. |
| Reported in | 1986Supp(1)SCC682 |
| Acts | Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 52 |
| Appellant | Ram Lakhan Singh |
| Respondent | Dy. Director of Consolidation and ors. |
| Disposition | Appeal Disposed |
Excerpt:
-
[ g.l. oza and; ranganath misra, jj.] -- transfer of property act, 1882 — section 52 — lis pendens — where one-third share of the entire plot in dispute claimed, a pendente lite transferee would be bound by the result of the litigation in respect of the entire plot -- the entire plots were in dispute and undivided one-third share thereof was claimed. 2. a statement has been produced before us supported by an affidavit to contend that the properties which the appellant had purchased extended beyond the 14 specified plots to which admittedly, the bar of section 52 of the transfer of property act would not be applicable.g.l. oza and; ranganath misra, jj.1. in the course of hearing of the matter learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the provisions of section 52 of the transfer of property act, 1882, and contended that in the litigation only one-third shade of the 14 named plots was in dispute. the rule of lis pendens would, therefore, not be applicable to more than one-third share in the property. this contention does not appear to be correct. the entire plots were in dispute and undivided one-third share thereof was claimed. a pendente lite transferee would, therefore, be bound by the result of the litigation in respect of all the plots then in dispute. once this contention is negatived there is really no merit in the appeal.2. a statement has been produced before us supported by an affidavit to contend that the properties which the appellant had purchased extended beyond the 14 specified plots to which admittedly, the bar of section 52 of the transfer of property act would not be applicable.3. if, in case, the statement is true the appellant would still have a claim against his vendor-makhan. we think it appropriate in the interest of justice that the deputy director of consolidation should examine this question and find out whether the appellant has a claim in any other item of property over and above the 14 named plots and if that position is correct, the appellant's right, if any, may be determined in accordance with law. the appeal is disposed of without any order for costs.
Judgment:G.L. Oza and; Ranganath Misra, JJ.
1. In the course of hearing of the matter learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and contended that in the litigation only one-third shade of the 14 named plots was in dispute. The rule of lis pendens would, therefore, not be applicable to more than one-third share in the property. This contention does not appear to be correct. The entire plots were in dispute and undivided one-third share thereof was claimed. A pendente lite transferee would, therefore, be bound by the result of the litigation in respect of all the plots then in dispute. Once this contention is negatived there is really no merit in the appeal.
2. A statement has been produced before us supported by an affidavit to contend that the properties which the appellant had purchased extended beyond the 14 specified plots to which admittedly, the bar of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act would not be applicable.
3. If, in case, the statement is true the appellant would still have a claim against his vendor-Makhan. We think it appropriate in the interest of justice that the Deputy Director of Consolidation should examine this question and find out whether the appellant has a claim in any other item of property over and above the 14 named plots and if that position is correct, the appellant's right, if any, may be determined in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of without any order for costs.