Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing C.M.V. Krishnamachari vs M.D. Dhanalakshmi Ammal And Ors. on 16 April, 1965

Sri Rajendra Prasad vs Rajesh Prasad on 19 November, 2018

12. The present Suit arose only after the petitioner filed R.C.No.311/2010 for eviction of the respondent No.1/plaintiff. The petitioner herein also filed a Suit for specific performance in O.S.No.109/2013 and the same is pending for trial. The Trial Court, without considering all these facts, simply dismissed I.A.No.1225 of 2011 in O.S.No.2724 of 2010 on the ground that immovable property cannot be transferred under an agreement of sale and a transfer of property under unregistered agreement of sale is not valid. Since it is an error in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of C.M.V. Krishnamachari v. M.D. Dhanalakshmi Ammai and others, relied upon by the petitioner. No prejudice would cause to the respondent No.1 ultimately if the Suit will be dismissed and the petitioner who is a purchaser under notarized agreement of sale dated:1.4.2005 can protect his rights and workout under equity. Accordingly, it is ordered to implead the petitioner as defendant No.6/respondent No.6 in the Suit for proper adjudication.
Telangana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A. Gyaneshwar Rao vs Mahmood Shareef And Anr. on 17 November, 1981

In M. V. Krishnamachari v. Dhanalakshmi, . In a suit for partition against C plaintiffs were claiming the property as joint family property . P filed an application fir impleading himself as a supplemental defendant and his case was that C had entered into a written agreement of sale with him agreeing to convey a certain house for a certain sum and in pursuance thereof a certain sum was paid to C who had agreed to convey the property and execute the registered deed of sale within a specified period; his further case was that the agreement of sale was entered into by C Making the express representation both oral and under express terms of the agreement of sale that the property agreed to be conveyed was his own self-acquired property. P's claim was that as the plaintiffs in the partition suit were claiming the property as joint family property and as he apprehended collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant he sought to be impleaded as a party to prevent any collusion and also to bring to the notice of the court his rights under the agreement of sale, so that in equity the property agreed to be sold, might if possible be allotted to the share of the defendant. In those circumstances and facts of the case, the Madras High Court held.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Badri Pershad vs Harish Chander And Anr. on 8 May, 1991

(10) Mr. Gupta submitted that the applicant would be vitally effected if either prayer 'a' or prayer 'b' of the plaint is allowed by the Court; because, according to the plaintiff, as per the oral partition of 1974; a wall may have to be constructed in a portion .of the property which is in possession of the applicant. He referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of G. M. V. Krishnamachari v. M. D. Dhanalakshmi and others and submitted that the expression all the questions involved in the suit' in O.I, Rio Civil Procedure Code must be given a wider interpretation and thai a person who had direct interest e;ther legal or equitable in the subject matter of the suit can be imp leaded as a party. He submitted that it had been held in this judgment that the interest of the person in the suit property should be such as the jaw would recognise and uphold. He submitted that there can be no dispute about the fact that the applicant bad such an interest.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Firm Of Mahadeva Rice And Oil Mills And ... vs Chennimalai Goundar on 16 December, 1966

(3) It is an essential prerequisite for one to be made a party that he should have a subsisting interest in the subject-matter of the suit. Ramamurti, J., had occasion to consider exhaustively the implications of O. 1, R. 10, Civil P.C. In Krishnamachari v. Dhanalakshmi Ammal, . The learned Judge observed that the interest that is necessary to make a person a party is legal interest including equitable interest, that is, an interest which law would recognise and uphold. Thus, the sine qua non for any person being impleaded to an already pending lis is that he or she should have a direct or tangible interest in the subject-matter. A mere convenience or benefit which might possibly result to a party applicant by adding another party to the pending suit is not the test to be applied. Avoidance of multiplicity of legal proceedings is no doubt a salient rule. Such avoidance must be in relation to the lis in question and cannot embarrass all possible conceivable litigation that the parties may indulge in later which are totally unconnected with the main issues in the suit. Another infallible test is that a new party can be added in order to decide all questions arising in the suit or involved in the suit. if, therefore, such questions can be decided without the proposed party, the judicial discretion vested in Court to implead parties Under O. 1, R. 10(2) Civil P. C., ought not to be exercised; if so exercised, it would amount to a patent exercise of jurisdiction when it is not there.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Sivaram vs Gananajyothi on 5 December, 2008

(3) It is an essential prerequisite for one to be made a party that should have a subsisting interest in the subject-matter of the suit. Ramamurthi, J. Had occasion to consider exhaustively the implications of O. I R.10, C.P.C. In Krishnamachari Vs Dhanalakshmi Ammal (1966) 2 Mad LJ 298 = (AIR 1968 Mad 142). The learned Judge observed that the interest that is necessary to make a person a party is legal interest including equitable interest, that is, an interest which law would recognise and uphold. Thus, the sine qua non for any person being impleaded to an already pending lis is that he or she should have a direct or tangible interest in the subject-matter. A mere convenience or benefit which might possibly result too a party applicant by adding another party to the pending suit is not the test to be applied. Avoidance of multiplicity of legal proceedings is no doubt a salient rule. Such avoidance must be in relation to the lis in question and cannot embarass all possible conceivable litigation that the parties may indulge in later which are totally unconnected with the main issues in the suit. Another infallible test is that a new party can be added in order to decide all questions arising in the suit or involved in the suit. If, therefore, such questions can be decided without the proposed party, the judicial discretion vested in Court to implead parties under O.I R.10(2), C.P.C. ought not to be exercised; if so exercised, it would amount to a patent exercise of jurisdiction when it is not there. In Rasia Begum V Anwar Begum, 1959 SCR 1111 = (AIR 1958 SC 886), their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the interest which the proposed party shall have in the suit to enable him to be impleaded therein, should be a direct interest and not a commercial interest. What is sought to be done in this case is that the plaintiff who has instituted a suit for partition of the suit property which is alleged to be in the joint possession of the respondent and the petitioners, applies for impleading his vendor who was originally the co-sharer in the property along with the petitioners. It cannot be said that, without the presence of the vendor of the plaintiff the issues arising in the suit and all questions involved therein cannot be decided satisfactorily. No question of avoidance of multiplicity of suit arises. The vendor has neither a direct or commercial interest in the list. It is significant to note that the petitioners are not disputing the sale or the share of the plaintiff in the suit property consequent upon such a sale. Indeed, no relief is asked for against the proposed party.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Rajeswaran - Full Document

P N Sadashiva vs P S Rajeshwari on 15 March, 2022

18. The learned counsel for the petitioner however placed strong reliance on the Judgment rendered by the Madras High Court in the case of C.M.C.rishnamachari vs. M.D. Dhanalashmi Ammal and Others, reported in AIR 1968 Mad 142. In the said case, the Court was dealing with the situation, where a person who claims that he had entered in an agreement of sale from one of the coparceners was permitted to come on record as a supplementary defendant. Obviously, the factual situation in that case resulted in the decision rendered by the Madras High Court in the terms stated therein. In the instant case, since the proposed parties are sought to implead themselves as proposed plaintiffs, the ratio laid down in that decision cannot be of any assistance to the plaintiffs..
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document
1   2 3 Next