WebHardev Singh V/s. Gurmail Singh Civil Appeal No. 6222 of 2000 In this Case the Court Observed that : Section 52 of the Act does not declare a pendente lite transfer by a party … WebGurmail Singh vs Udham Kaur (Deceased) Through Lr ... on 9 April, 1999. Equivalent citations: AIR 1999 P H 300, (1999) 122 PLR 747. ... The same will also be an obstacle …
Transfer of property pendente lite - iPleaders
WebMar 7, 2024 · Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting Section 41 in the judgment reported as Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (Dead) by LRs, MANU/SC/0719/2007 : (2007) 2, … WebThis court in Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (2007) 2 SCC 404 held that Section 52 of the Act does not declare a pendente lite transfer by a party to the suit as void or illegal, but only makes the pendente lite purchaser bound by the decision in the pending litigation. 10. The principle underlying Section 52 is clear. mount nittany reedsville
Hardev Singh vs Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs on 2 February, 2007
WebHardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs., 2007 SCC 2 404. Section 41 provides that a transfer by an ostensible owner cannot be avoided on the ground that the transferor was not authorised therefore, subject to the condition that the transferee should take reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had the WebFeb 2, 2007 · ORIGINAL PDF. Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs. . S.B Sinha, J.—. This appeal raises an interesting question of law in regard to interpretation of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“the Act”, for short). 2. Harcharan Singh, original Defendant 1, allegedly transferred some properties in favour of his wife Udham ... WebAug 4, 2024 · Hardev Singh v/s Harpreet Kaur & Ors Facts: In the present case, Appellant (Hardev Singh) and Respondent (Harpreet Kaur) have married each other without the consent of their parents. Due to the problems created by the parents of Respondent, they sought police protection. High Court in lieu of the same granted protection order. mount nittany record request