Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 14 Rule 1—Omission to frame issue—Effect of—Mere omission to frame an issue as required under Order 14 Rule 1 of the CPC does not vitiate the trial where the parties go to trial fully knowing the rival case and lead evidence in support of their respective contentions and to refute contentions of the other side.
[Para 11]
Hindu Law
Sale of Joint Family Property—Legal necessity—Legal authority of Karta to execute agreement to sell for sale of suit land—Karta enjoys wide discretion over existence of legal necessity—Karta is entitled to execute the agreement to sell and even alienate the suit property—Right conferred on Karta would bind on all non-alienating coparcerners where alienation is for legal necessity—Absence of signatures of son of Karta would not matter and is inconsequential—Karta had received rupees four lakhs as advance from the appellant which is recorded in the agreement to sell—Suit property was encumbered in favour of the bank and executants had informed that the dues of bank would be cleared to release the mortgage before the date of registration—Agreement to sell cannot be set aside on ground of absence of legal necessity—Impugned judgment and decree passed by High Court is set aside and that of trial court is restored—Appeal allowed.
[Paras 8, 9 & 13]
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section 52—Lis pendens—Applicability—Suit property has been transferred to a third person during the pendency of appeal—Transfer would be subject to and hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.
[Para 12]