Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)Section 52 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya vs Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya ... on 3 October, 2017
In Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia (supra) an application for substitution filed under Order 22 Rule 4 was dismissed as not maintainable for the reason that defendant no.4 in the said suit had died even before the institution of the suit. The Supreme Court however found the heirs of the defendant to be necessary and proper party and therefore, held that even if Order 22 Rule 4 was not applicable, the court should have exercised power vested in it under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It was observed that mere mention of a wrong provision of law will not be impediment in the way of court in allowing impleadment if such power is vested under some other provision of law. The relevant observations made in this regard are as under:-
Dwarka Prasad Singh & Others vs Harikant Prasad Singh & Others on 29 November, 1972
43. This Court again in the case of Dwarka Prasad Singh vs. Harikant Prasad Singh and others AIR 1973 SC 655 subscribed to its earlier view and held that in a suit for specific performance against a person with notice of a prior agreement of sale is a necessary party.
Nagubai Ammal & Others vs B. Shama Rao & Others on 26 April, 1956
In Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao AIR 1956 SC 593 this Court while interpreting Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act observed:
Vinod Seth vs Devinder Bajaj & Anr on 5 July, 2010
50. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj (2010) 8 SCC 1 where this Court held that Section 52 does not render transfers affected during the pendency of the suit void but only render such transfers subservient to the rights as may be eventually determined by the Court. The following passage in this regard is apposite:
A. Nawab John & Ors vs V. N. Subramaniyam on 3 July, 2012
51. The decision of this Court in A. Nawab John v. V.N. Subramanyam (2012) 7 SCC 738 is a recent reminder of the principle of law enunciated in the earlier decisions. This Court in that case summed up the legal position thus:
Jayaram Mudaliar vs Ayyaswami And Ors. on 12 April, 1972
52. We may finally refer to the decision of this Court in Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami (1972) 2 SCC 200 in which were extracted with approval observations made on the doctrine of lis pendens in "Commentaries on the Laws of Scotland, by Bell. This Court said:
Khemchand Shankar Choudharyand ... vs Vishnu Hari Patil And Others on 3 December, 1982
In Khemchand Shanker Choudhary v. Vishnu Hari Patil (1983) 1 SCC 18, this Court held that:
Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr vs Farida Khatoon & Anr on 13 April, 2005
56. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon (2005) 11 SCC 403 wherein this Court held that a transferor pendente lite may not even defend the title properly as he has no interest in the same or may collude with the plaintiff in which case the interest of the purchaser pendente lite will be ignored. To avoid such situations the transferee pendente lite can be added as a party defendant to the case provided his interest is substantial and not just peripheral. This is particularly so where the transferee pendente lite acquires interest in the entire estate that forms the subject matter of the dispute. This Court observed: