Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.30 seconds)Ram Bilash Pandey And Ors. vs Jai Narayan Gupta And Ors. on 21 December, 1983
ii. Ram Bilash Pandey & Ors v Jai Narayan Gupta & Ors
AIR 1984 Pat 218 : In the said case, a suit for specific
performance of contract for sale entered into by certain
members of a joint Hindu family was filed. Other members of
the family claimed to be impleaded on the ground that the
property which was sought to be sold was joint family property
and that it was acquired with joint family funds.
Anil Kumar Singh vs Shivnath Mishra And Gadasa Guru on 24 October, 1994
iii. Anil Kumar Singh v Shivnath Mishra (1995) 3 SCC
147 and Kasturi v Iyyamperumal AIR 2005 SC 2813 : In said
cases, it was held that the intervenors who are not party to the
RFA (OS) 86/1998 Page 4 of 50
agreement of sale are not necessary party to the suit for
specific performance for the reason their presence is not
necessary in order to determine the dispute as to specific
performance.
Pravat Kumar Misra vs Prafulla Chandra Misra And Anr. on 2 February, 1977
iv. Pravat Kumar Misra vs. Prafulla Chandra Misra &
Anr. AIR 1977 Orissa 183 : A third party claiming rival title to
the suit property was held not entitled to be impleaded as a
defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of
possession of the suit premises from the tenant, on the
ground, that a simple suit for recovery of possession cannot be
converted into a complex title suit.
Jiwan Das vs Narain Das on 1 May, 1981
v. Jiwan Dass Rawal vs. Narain Dass & Ors. AIR 1981
Delhi 291 : It was held that a party claiming right under an
agreement to sell cannot claim any right, title or interest in the
property till sale is finalized for the reason an agreement to
sell does not create a right, title or interest in the property
agreed to be sold. It is a right in personam against the seller.
Sm. Sukumari Debi And Another vs Shri Ramdas Ganguli on 6 April, 1993
viii. Smt.Sukumari Debi & Anr. vs. Shri Ram Dass
Ganguly AIR 1994 Calcutta 85 : It was held that in an eviction
suit by a co-owner who was the landlord, other co-owners not
being co-landlords cannot be arrayed as co-plaintiffs.
Evangelical Church Of India vs North India Outreach Society on 9 January, 1997
ix. Evangelical Church of India vs. North India
Outreach Society 1997 (40) DRJ 250 : It was held that in an
eviction suit by the landlord against the ex-employee for
restoration of possession over premises allotted to the
employee as a term of employment, person claiming to be the
owner of the premises and disputing title of the plaintiff was
not entitled to be impleaded as a party.
Sumtibai & Others vs Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W/O ... on 4 October, 2007
xi. Sumtibai & Ors v Paras Finance Co. JT 2007 (11) SC
749 : In said case, noting the decision in Kasturi's case (supra),
the Supreme Court has observed as under :-
Savita Devi vs District Judge, Gorakhpur And Others on 18 February, 1999
xii. Savitri Devi vs. District Judge Gorakhpur & Ors.
1999 (2) SCC 577 : in a suit filed by Savitri Devi against her
sons claiming decree for maintenance and a charge over
ancestral property, the applicant who was a transferee
pendente lite was held to be a necessary party since charge, if
granted on the properties would have affected his title.
Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr vs Farida Khatoon & Anr on 13 April, 2005
xiii. Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. vs. Farida Khatoon & Ors.
2005 (11) SCC 403 : a transferee pendente lite was held
entitled to be substituted under Order 22 Rule 10 in a pending
suit in place of the existing defendants.