Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Section 146 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Surjit Singh & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Harbans Singh & Ors. Etc. Etc on 6 September, 1995
Incidentally we may observe that in Surjit Singh and Ors. v. Harbans Singh
and Ors., [1995] 6 SCC 50, the assignees pendente lite were refused by this
Court to be brought on record as they had purchased the suit property after
the passing of the preliminary decree and in clear defiance of the restrain
order passed by the Court injuncting any alienation/assignment. It was a
case of exercising discretion not to grant leave under Order 22 Rule 10 of
the CPC, in the circumstance of the case, as in the opinion of this court
permitting impleadment and recognizing the alienation/assignment would
amount to defeating the ends of justice and the prevalent public policy.
That case is clearly distinguishable.
Section 52 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sm. Saila Bala Dassi vs Sm. Nirmala Sundari Dassi And Another on 14 February, 1958
In sm. Salla Bala Dassi case (supra) an earlier
decision of this Court in Jugalkishore Saraf v. M/s. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd.,
[1955] I SCR 1369 was followed. It was a case where during the pendency of
a suit for recovery of a debt from the defendant the plaintiff in that suit
had transferred to a third person all the book and other debts. This Court
held that the position of the transferor vis-a-vis the transferee is
nothing more than that of a benamidar for the latter and when the decree is
passed for the recovery of that debt it is the latter who is the real owner
of the decree. When the transferee becomes the owner of the decree
immediately on its passing, he must, in relation to the decree, be also
regarded as person claiming under the transferor.
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Sardar Govindrao Mahadik & Anr vs Devi Sahai & Ors on 15 December, 1981
In Sardar Govindrao Mahadik and Anr. v. Devi Sahai and Ors.. [1982] 1 SCC
237, this held that an application not falling under Order 22 Rule 10 of
the CPC stricto sensu could yet be held to be maintainable by having
recourse to Section 146 of the CPC.
1