Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.38 seconds)
S.Dhanaraj vs Dhakshina Mara Nadar Sangam on 18 April, 2009 cites

D.S. Mariappan And Anr. vs N. Manoharan And Anr. on 23 March, 2001

In support of his contention that the revision petitioners are necessary and proper parties for thrashing out the controversies/disputes involved in the suit, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners relies on the decision of this Court in D.S.Mariappan and others v. N.Manoharan and others reported in 2009(1) TLNJ 113 (Civil) at page 115, wherein is is held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar vs K.Sabarinathan on 4 March, 2008

12. He also presses into service the decision of this Court in Ashok Kumar v. K.Sabarinathan and others reported in 2008(2) CTC 482, wherein it is held that 'necessary party is one without whom no order can be effectively made and proper party is one who is necessary for final decision of question involved in proceeding and that addition of parties would depend on facts and circumstances of case and that auction purchaser having deposited only part of sale consideration cannot claim any interest into suit property as he has no semblance of title and that third party could become party to such proceeding if he has any semblance of title to said property.'
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - S J Mukhopadhaya - Full Document
1