An Ontario High Court dismissed three appeals concerning property where a plaintiff claimed to be a purchaser. The court upheld orders noting that bank auctions must wait on specific performance suits by original sellers.
None; appeals dismissed and earlier orders unaltered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 69, 71, 83 OF 2010
Sk. Siddiq Sk. Supdu
Vs. Mahamud Kha Fakira Kha & Ors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders
directions and Registrar's orders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. S. P. Bhandarkar Adv for appellant. Mr. S. S. Ghate Adv for respondent 7.
CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL J.
DATED: 11th AUGUST, 2010.
Heard. Learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.7, Janta Central Cooperative Bank Limited informs, the property was mortgaged to the bank. It has been put to auction. Auction is knocked in favour of the highest bidder, which was after rejection of such application moved by plaintiff
2
before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Buldhana.
Shri Ghate learned counsel submits, he is not served with the copies of present Appeal Against Order which was incumbent upon the appellant.
The nature of controversy in the three matters relate to plaintiff's assertion to be a purchaser of property having entered into an agreement of sale and parted earnest. The assertion of possession of plaintiff was found to be erroneous and not supported by any relative document except bare words in the agreement. None of the adjoining occupier or any entries supported plaintiff's assertion.
Added to it is, the subsequent development as highlighted herein above. The transaction between the bank, or even subsequent purchaser through the bank shall be subject to the pending litigation initiated by the plaintiff, against the owners seeking
3
specific performance of the contract. With the above observations orders under challenge, are not disturbed, remain unaltered. All the three Appeal Against Orders and other applications disposed of.
JUDGE
svk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the property transaction with the bank remains subject to pending specific performance litigation.
Sk. Siddiq Sk. Supdu
Mahamud Kha Fakira Kha & Ors.
K. U. Chandiwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
