SAMARENDRA NATH SINHA & ANR. versus KRISHNA KUMAR NAG

SAMARENDRA NATH SINHA & ANR. versus KRISHNA KUMAR NAG

The trial court was empowered by sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to correct the accidental error and pass a final foreclosure decree as intended; the respondent auction purchaser, acquiring interest pendente lite, was bound by lis pendens and could not claim redemption after the foreclosure decree extinguished such rights, making his appeal misconceived.

Parties
Appellant: Samarendra Nath Sinha & Anr.; Respondent: Krishna Kumar Nag
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 November 1966
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Calcutta High Court Judgment and Decree Dated November 12, 1961
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Foreclosure, Mortgage by Conditional Sale, Lis Pendens, Correction of Decree
Civil Procedure Property Law Foreclosure Mortgage by Conditional Sale Lis Pendens Correction of Decree

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samarendra Nath Sinha & Anr.

Appellant

Krishna Kumar Nag

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Calcutta High Court Judgment and Decree Dated November 12, 1961

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court had power to correct a clerical mistake and pass a final decree for foreclosure instead of sale
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of lis pendens applies to a purchaser at a court sale during pendency of appeal
  3. 3 Whether the respondent auction purchaser could participate and maintain the appeal for redemption after a final foreclosure decree

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court was empowered by sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to correct the accidental error and pass a final foreclosure decree as intended; the respondent auction purchaser, acquiring interest pendente lite, was bound by lis pendens and could not claim redemption after the foreclosure decree extinguished such rights, making his appeal misconceived.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of Calcutta High Court set aside
  • Judgment and final foreclosure decree of Trial Court restored