Dismissed¶22

Rajnish Puri and Another v. Sanjay Mehta and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2025ESA/40/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court; Execution Second Appeal No. 40 of 2023 (O&M); Anil Kshetarpal J.; lis pendens; Section 52 Transfer of Property Act 1882; bonafide purchaser exempted category; symbolic possession 300 square yards; suit for specific performance; tenant in possession; condonation of delay 1436 days; decree holder; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The defence of being a bonafide purchaser is not available to a person claiming to be a bonafide purchaser unless he comes within the exempted category under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; the appellants have not proved that they fall in the exempted category. ¶21

Rajnish Puri and Another Vs Sanjay Mehta and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

125

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶3

Execution Second Appeal No. 40 of 2023 (O&M)

¶4

Date of Decision: 16.05.2025

¶5

Rajnish Puri and Another

¶6

... Appellant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sanjay Mehta (Since Deceased) through his Legal Representatives and Others

¶9

... Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

¶11

Present: Mr. N.K.Manchanda, Advocate for the appellant(s).

¶12

Mr. Navdeep Jain, Advocate for Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the legal representatives of respondent No.1.

¶13

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

¶14

CM-7527-C-2023

¶15

This is an application for condonation of delay of 1436 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 1436 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

¶16

ESA-40-2023

¶17

The appellants claim to be the tenants in possession as well as the purchasers of the property during the pendency of the suit for possession by way of specific performance. Hence, both the Courts below held that the sale deed in favour of the appellants is governed by rule of lis pendens and hence, shall abide by the possession of the main suit for specific

¶18

performance of the agreement. Qua the appellants’ claim on the basis of the DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2025.05.21 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

Execution Second Appeal No. 40 of 2023 (O&M) 2

¶20

tenancy, the First Appellate Court has ordered that the appellants shall not be physically dispossessed and only symbolic possession of the property measuring 300 square yards shall be delivered to the decree holder.

¶21

The learned counsel representing the appellants submits that they are the bonafide purchasers of the property. But it is pertinent to mention that such defence is not available to a person who claims to be a bonafide purchaser unless he comes within the exempted category under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The appellants have not proved that they fall in the exempted category.

¶22

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.

¶23

The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶24

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge

¶25

May 16, 2025 “DK”

¶26

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶27

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2025.05.21 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rajnish Puri and Another v. Sanjay Mehta and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnish Puri and Another v. Sanjay Mehta and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajinder Singh Vs Rubi Gupta and Ors.

Dev Rattan Vs Shiv Mandir Alias Gram Sudhar Samiti and Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Nand Ram

Raj Kumar Goyal Vs Om Parkash and Another

Bhuvan Jain @ Babi N Vs Sunil Kumar and Another

Baldev Singh Vs Surjit Singh and Ors.