Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Section 146 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 52 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Registration Act, 1908
Gurmit Singh Bhatia vs Kiran Kant Robinson on 17 July, 2019
11. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court between Gurmit Singh Bhatia v.
Kiran Kant Robinson and others6, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as
follows:
Vijay Pratap & Ors vs Sambhu Saran Sinha & Ors on 30 July, 1996
In the case of Vijay
Pratap v. Sambhu Saran Sinha [(1996) 10 SCC 53] this Court
had taken the same view which is being taken by us in this
judgment as discussed above. This Court in that decision
9
clearly held that to decide the right, title and interest in the suit
property of the stranger to the contract is beyond the scope of
the suit for specific performance of the contract and the same
cannot be turned into a regular title suit. Therefore, in our view,
a third party or a stranger to the contract cannot be added so as
to convert a suit of one character into a suit of different
character. As discussed above, in the event any decree is
passed against Respondents 2 and 3 and in favour of the
appellant for specific performance of the contract for sale in
respect of the contracted property, the decree that would be
passed in the said suit, obviously, cannot bind Respondents 1
and 4 to 11. It may also be observed that in the event, the
appellant obtains a decree for specific performance of the
contracted property against Respondents 2 and 3, then, the
Court shall direct execution of deed of sale in favour of the
appellant in the event Respondents 2 and 3 refusing to execute
the deed of sale and to obtain possession of the contracted
property he has to put the decree in execution. As noted
hereinearlier, since Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 were not parties
in the suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of the
contracted property, a decree passed in such a suit shall not
bind them and in that case, Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 would
be at liberty either to obstruct execution in order to protect their
possession by taking recourse to the relevant provisions of
CPC, if they are available to them, or to file an independent suit
for declaration of title and possession against the appellant or
Respondent 3. On the other hand, if the decree is passed in
favour of the appellant and sale deed is executed, the stranger
to the contract being Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 have to be
sued for taking possession if they are in possession of the
decretal property.
Rajwanti Phogat vs Gian Chand Sethi & Ors. on 10 December, 2018
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance upon
the decision of the Delhi High Court between Rajwanti Phogat vs. Gian
Chand Sethi and others5, wherein it was held that:
H. Anjanappa vs A. Prabhakar on 29 August, 2023
5. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
H.Anjanappa and others vs. A.Prabhakar and others1, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court held as follows:
Indian Overseas Bank vs M.A.S Subramanian on 13 November, 2018
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance upon
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Indian Overseas Bank
vs. M.A.S. Subramanian and others2, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held
as follows: