USHA SINHA versus DINA RAM & ORS.

USHA SINHA versus DINA RAM & ORS.

A purchaser of property during pendency of litigation (transferee pendente lite) has no independent right to resist or obstruct execution of decree and is bound by doctrine of lis pendens; Rule 102 of Order XXI CPC operates to prevent such resistance or obstruction, and the Executing Court was not justified in staying execution proceedings. The High Court was correct in setting aside the stay.

Parties
Appellant: Usha Sinha; Respondents: Dina Ram & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Decision on Revision of Execution Court's Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Execution of Decree, Doctrine of Lis Pendens, Transferee Pendente Lite, Injunction, Order XXI Rule 102 CPC, Transfer of Property Act Section 52
Civil Procedure Property Law Execution of Decree Doctrine of Lis Pendens Transferee Pendente Lite Injunction Order XXI Rule 102 CPC Transfer of Property Act Section 52

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Usha Sinha

Appellant

Dina Ram & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Decision on Revision of Execution Court's Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a transferee pendente lite can resist execution of a decree against judgment debtor under Order XXI CPC
  2. 2 Applicability of Rule 102 of Order XXI CPC to transferee from judgment debtor
  3. 3 Effect of doctrine of lis pendens on purchaser during pendency of litigation

Ratio Decidendi

A purchaser of property during pendency of litigation (transferee pendente lite) has no independent right to resist or obstruct execution of decree and is bound by doctrine of lis pendens; Rule 102 of Order XXI CPC operates to prevent such resistance or obstruction, and the Executing Court was not justified in staying execution proceedings. The High Court was correct in setting aside the stay.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs
  • High Court's order setting aside stay of execution proceedings upheld