Agreement During Pendency Of Suit

2 Dec

The general doctrine of rights states that if the property has been the subject of litigation, the defendant or part of his interest in the property could be transferred in the course of litigation, but not to the detriment of the applicant`s rights. In other words, a third-party buyer is bound by the court judgment as if he or she is gone. This principle is based on the maxim “pendente lite nihil innovetur”, which means that nothing new should be introduced in an ongoing dispute. In the Indian Law, p. 52 of Transfer of Property Act, of 1882, it says: “During hanging in every court… an action or procedure that is not collusive and in which a right to immobility is directly and concretely called into question, no party can transfer ownership to action or procedure, nor be treated in any other way to infringe the right of another party… Therefore, the disputed property, which is in dispute, should not be sold or not exchanged by a dispute resolution party. But if the transfer ever took place, the law does not erase the sale by His acting issue, but makes the buyer only subject to the court`s decision. [1] Whether the permeability during the wife`s trial, the goupanna Gounder/Rasammal case,[34] in which the court found it to be a personal action and that the property of a family member acquired by a family member was not affected by Section 52, was invoked in the case of Karupanna Gounder/Rasammal.

[35] “It is indisputable that the parties are, in general, only the right parties to an invoice for the actual performance of a sales contract; and if the reason for this jurisdiction of equity courts is considered in actions of this type, it could not be otherwise. In this case, the Court of Justice assumes jurisdiction, to the extent that, in many cases, a court that will only compensate if it fails to fulfil the contract does not offer adequate recourse.