Advocate Chirag Arora

25/09/2024

25/09/2024

25/09/2024

Madras High Court Judgment
Property Law - Bonafide purchaser - Principle of lis pendens
CPC - S.99, 100 & O.6R.4 - T.P. Act - S.52 - Specific Relief Act - S.19 - suit for declaration - suit for injunction - suit dismissed - first appeal allowed - second appeal filed - bonafide purchaser - principle of lis pendens - issue that whether this sale is hit by the principle of lis pendens - held, S.19 operates in case a person has purchased the property without due notice of the agreement ‘prior to the presentation of the plaint'. Once the purchase takes place after the presentation of the plaint, S.52 is attracted. The plane in which S.52 operates is fundamentally different from the one under S.19. Lis pendens does not know of a bonafide purchase. A person who purchases the property gets whatever is the result of the decree. In this particular case, since the plaintiff has purchased the property pending the lis in legal heirs, he gets what the defendants in that suit would have obtained. The defendants in that suit only suffered a judgment of specific performance and faced the ignominy of delivery of possession through process of Court. - Plaintiff in the present suit would be bound by the decree - The law according to me is this, where S.52 Act applies, S.19 of the Act will have to give way. - Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree is set aside.

25/09/2024

Allahabad High Court Judgment
Disputed will - Validity of the disputed will can only be: determined by a civil court
IPC - S.419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 - CRPC - S.245, 397 & 401 - discharge application filed by the accused - The prosecution's case rests on the disputed will, challenging its validity. Upon examining the evidence and reviewing the impugned order, it is clear that the revisionist/complainant had already on tested the will before the consolidation authorities and the High Court, but no adverse findings against the will have been recorded. Moreover, the validity of the disputed will can only be determined by a civil court, which has not yet declared it invalid. It is a well-established legal principle that unless a competent court questions the validity of a document, criminal proceedings for forgery based on that document cannot continue. The court found no illegality or flaw in the impugned order, and thus no reason to interfere. As a result, the discharge application was rightly allowed, and the revision was dismissed.