Exemption From Attachment - To Get Benefit Of Section 64(2) CPC, Subsequent Purchaser Must Plead & Prove That He Is A Bona Fide Purchaser : Supreme Court
2 years, 11 months ago

Exemption From Attachment - To Get Benefit Of Section 64(2) CPC, Subsequent Purchaser Must Plead & Prove That He Is A Bona Fide Purchaser : Supreme Court

Live Law  

The Supreme Court recently observed that to get the benefit of Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the objector and/or subsequent purchaser has to plead and prove that he is the bona fide purchaser, who has entered into the transaction prior to the order of attachment. In the entire application, there is no whisper and/or averment and/or pleadings that the petitioner is the bona fide purchaser and that there was an oral agreement prior to the order of attachment and that the part sale consideration/sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid prior to the order of attachment. To get the benefit of sub-section of Section 64 of the CPC, the objector and/or subsequent purchaser has to plead and prove that he is the bona fide purchaser, who has entered into the transaction prior to the order of attachment. Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate R Chandrachud while referring to Section 64 of CPC had submitted that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser, who purchased the property in question prior to the order of attachment.

Court Order Cpc Petitioner Prior Fide Purchaser Attachment Subsequent Purchaser Section 64 Bona  exemption  prove  order  petitioner  supreme  subsequent  agreement  plead  court  bona  purchaser  attachment  fide  prior  cpc

History of this topic

Section 47 CPC Applications Raising Property Rights After Passing Of Decree To Be Treated As Application Under Order 21 Rule 97 : Supreme Court
1 week, 4 days ago

Section 47 CPC Applications Raising Property Rights After Passing Of Decree To Be Treated As Application Under Order 21 Rule 97 : Supreme Court

Live Law  

The Supreme Court recently observed that an application filed under Section 47 of CPC relating to the determination of questions related to the execution of the decree would be deemed as an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 if it raises questions of right, title, or interest in the property. The Court clarified that while applications under Section 47 …

Section 47 CPC Applications Raising Property Rights After Passing Of Decree To Be Treated As Application Under Order 21 Rule 97 : Supreme Court
1 week, 4 days ago

Section 47 CPC Applications Raising Property Rights After Passing Of Decree To Be Treated As Application Under Order 21 Rule 97 : Supreme Court

Live Law  

The Supreme Court recently observed that an application filed under Section 47 of CPC relating to the determination of questions related to the execution of the decree would be deemed as an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 if it raises questions of right, title, or interest in the property.The Court clarified that while applications under Section 47 of …

Conditions To Invoke S. 53A Transfer Of Property Act : Supreme Court Explains
2 months, 3 weeks ago

Conditions To Invoke S. 53A Transfer Of Property Act : Supreme Court Explains

Live Law  

The Supreme Court recently observed that the transferee cannot claim protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 if he fails to prove the execution of a sale agreement based on which possession was claimed.The Court also explained the conditions to invoke Section 53A.The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing the plea. …

Conditions To Invoke S. 53A Transfer Of Property Act : Supreme Court Explains
2 months, 3 weeks ago

Conditions To Invoke S. 53A Transfer Of Property Act : Supreme Court Explains

Live Law  

The Supreme Court recently observed that the transferee cannot claim protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 if he fails to prove the execution of a sale agreement based on which possession was claimed.The Court also explained the conditions to invoke Section 53A.The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing the plea. …

S.19(b) Specific Relief Act | To Claim 'Bona Fide Purchaser' Protection, Subsequent Purchaser Must Make Due Inquiries : Supreme Court
3 months, 3 weeks ago

S.19(b) Specific Relief Act | To Claim 'Bona Fide Purchaser' Protection, Subsequent Purchaser Must Make Due Inquiries : Supreme Court

Live Law  

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court observed that a 'subsequent purchaser' of immovable property cannot claim the benefit of a 'bona fide' purchaser under Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 if they fail to exercise due diligence regarding the status of the current possessor of the property they intend to purchase The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala …

Order XXI CPC | Failure To Raise Objections Before Proclamation Of Sale Not Bar To Challenge An Irregular Sale: Kerala High Court
1 year, 6 months ago

Order XXI CPC | Failure To Raise Objections Before Proclamation Of Sale Not Bar To Challenge An Irregular Sale: Kerala High Court

Live Law  

The Kerala High Court recently laid down that the failure to raise objections before the proclamation of sale as prescribed under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC does not preclude the appellant from challenging the sale if the mandatory procedures under Order XXI Rule 64 were not complied with. Order XXI Rule 64 CPC deals with the power of the court …

Subsequent Purchaser Has No Right to Claim Lapse of Land Acquisition Proceedings U/s 24 RFCTLARR : Supreme Court
2 years, 4 months ago

Subsequent Purchaser Has No Right to Claim Lapse of Land Acquisition Proceedings U/s 24 RFCTLARR : Supreme Court

Live Law  

The Supreme Court reiterated that a subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings.In this case, the land in question was notified to be acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 25.11.1980; declaration under Section 6 was issued on 07.06.1985; and award came to be declared by the Collector on 17.06.1987. Vs. Commissioner, …

Order I Rule 10 CPC - Nobody Can Be Permitted To Be Impleaded As Defendants Against The Wish Of The Plaintiffs Unless Court Suo Motu Directs: Supreme Court
2 years, 6 months ago

Order I Rule 10 CPC - Nobody Can Be Permitted To Be Impleaded As Defendants Against The Wish Of The Plaintiffs Unless Court Suo Motu Directs: Supreme Court

Live Law  

The Supreme Court reiterated that the plaintiffs are the dominus litis and unless the court suo motu directs, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs.The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed that non-impleading the subsequent purchasers as defendants on the objection raised by the plaintiffs shall be at the …

PMLA- Person Can't Be Prevented From Enjoying Property On Mere Confirmation Of Provisional Attachment : Supreme Court
2 years, 7 months ago

PMLA- Person Can't Be Prevented From Enjoying Property On Mere Confirmation Of Provisional Attachment : Supreme Court

Live Law  

The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, held that in the period between the confirmation of provisional attachment under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the passing of the formal order of confiscation, the person interested in the such immovable property cannot be refrained from enjoying the attached property, in terms similar to that provided in Section …

Purchaser Of Suit Property Cannot File Application Under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC Objecting Execution Of Decree By Decree Holder: Supreme Court
2 years, 8 months ago

Purchaser Of Suit Property Cannot File Application Under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC Objecting Execution Of Decree By Decree Holder: Supreme Court

Live Law  

The Supreme Court observed that purchaser of the suit property from the decree holder is not entitled to file an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 objecting execution of the decree by the decree holder.BackgroundIn this case, a Suit filed by late Shri N.D. Mishra was decreed by the Trial Court restraining the …

Purchaser Has No Right To Claim Lapsing Of Land Acquisition Proceedings Under Sec 24 RFCTLARR Act : Supreme Court
2 years, 10 months ago

Purchaser Has No Right To Claim Lapsing Of Land Acquisition Proceedings Under Sec 24 RFCTLARR Act : Supreme Court

Live Law  

"The purchaser has no right to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings in view of the recent larger Bench judgment of this Court reported as Shiv Kumar & Anr. A Bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian allowed appeal filed by Delhi Development Authority assailing the order of the Delhi High Court which had allowed writ petition seeking declaration that …

Order XXI Rule 34 CPC Cannot Be Diluted; Execution Court Has Duty To Invite Objections From Judgment Debtor To Draft Document/Deed : Supreme Court
3 years ago

Order XXI Rule 34 CPC Cannot Be Diluted; Execution Court Has Duty To Invite Objections From Judgment Debtor To Draft Document/Deed : Supreme Court

Live Law  

The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be diluted and it has to invite objections from the judgment debtor to the draft deed/document submitted by the decree holder. The court noted the scheme of Order XXI Rule 34 as follows: -If the judgment debtor neglects or refuses to …

Section 144 CPC [Restitution] Not Attracted When There Is No Variation Or Reversal Of A Decree Or Order, Reiterates SC [Read Judgment]
5 years, 4 months ago

Section 144 CPC [Restitution] Not Attracted When There Is No Variation Or Reversal Of A Decree Or Order, Reiterates SC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

The Supreme Court has observed that the provisions of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not be attracted when there is no variation or reversal of a decree or order. Thereafter, a petition under Section 151 read with Section 144 CPC was filed before the High Court to restore possession of the subject property. The possession was …

Discover Related