MEDDUKURI PEDA JOGARAO Vs. YENUGU CHINNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada dated 13th March, 1933, allowing an appeal from the decree of the District Munsiff of Peddapuram dated 7 December, 1931, in E.A. No. 642 of 1931, an application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, for removal of obstruction caused by the respondents and for delivery of the property on the ground that the respondents had purchased the property pendente lite from the first defendant in O.S. No. 278 of 1919, the first petitioner being the plaintiff therein. The transfer, in question was dated 30 April, 1919, whereas the suit (O.S. No. 278) was instituted on 24 March, 1919, as an application for leave to sue as a pauper.

(2.) The sole question that is argued in this appeal is that the transfer in question (Ex. II) was not a transfer during the pendency of O.S. No. 278 because, though the application for leave to sue as a pauper was filed prior to the transfer, nevertheless the application was not actually registered as a suit till first August, 1919. Before the recent amendment of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 52 was worded differently, but the amendment does not appear to have made any change in the law. The old section provided that: During the active prosecution in any Court of a contentious suit or proceeding in which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto....

(3.) The present section provides that: During the pendency in any Court of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred....