High Court held attachment of property justified as sale during maintenance suit pending without adequate provision presumed constructed against transferee under Section 39 of Transfer of Property Act.
Attachment of property ordered justified; petitioner to deposit maintenance amount before executing court to stay further proceedings.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.3534 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision:24.01.2013
Darshan Singh ....Petitioner
versus
Amarjit Kaur and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present: Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
Civil Revision No.3534 of 2005 (O&M) - 2 -
third person is entitled to maintenance, the right of such maintenance could be enforced against a transferee if he has notice or if the transfer is gratuitous. In this case, the notice must be presumed by the fact that the sale has come about during the pendency of the suit for maintenance itself. The attachment ordered was, therefore, perfectly justified.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE
24.01.2013 sanjeev
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a bona fide purchaser from a husband can resist attachment of property when sale occurred during pendency of maintenance suit without adequate maintenance provision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Darshan Singh
Amarjit Kaur
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
