Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)Section 52 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
A. Nawab John & Ors vs V. N. Subramaniyam on 3 July, 2012
17. Therefore, the mere fact that the RSD was executed during
the pendency of the Underlying Suit does not automatically
render it null and void. On this ground alone, we find the
Impugned Order to be wholly erroneous as it employs Section 52
of the Act to nullify the RSD and on that basis, concludes that the
impleadment application is untenable. Contrary to this approach
of the High Court, the law on impleadment of subsequent
transferees, as established by this Court has evolved in a manner
that liberally enables subsequent transferees to protect their
interests in recognition of the possibility that the transferor
pendente lite may not defend the title or may collude with the
plaintiff therein [See the decision of this Court in Amit Kumar
Shaw vs. Farida Khatoon, (2005) 11 SCC 403 & A. Nawab John
vs. V.N. Subramaniyam, (2012) 7 SCC 738].
Jineshwardas (Dead) Through L. Rs. & Ors vs Smt. Jagrani & Anr on 26 September, 2003
Therefore, the
judgment in Bibi Zubaida (supra), being distinguishable on facts,
does not assist the Respondents herein.
Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs Nanak Builders & Investrs.P.Ltd & Ors on 21 February, 2013
To that extent,
he highlights that contrary to the factual position in Thomson
Press (supra), in this case, the title of the Appellant itself is in
question and additionally, the Appellant is not in possession of
the Subject Land.
Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr vs Farida Khatoon & Anr on 13 April, 2005
17. Therefore, the mere fact that the RSD was executed during
the pendency of the Underlying Suit does not automatically
render it null and void. On this ground alone, we find the
Impugned Order to be wholly erroneous as it employs Section 52
of the Act to nullify the RSD and on that basis, concludes that the
impleadment application is untenable. Contrary to this approach
of the High Court, the law on impleadment of subsequent
transferees, as established by this Court has evolved in a manner
that liberally enables subsequent transferees to protect their
interests in recognition of the possibility that the transferor
pendente lite may not defend the title or may collude with the
plaintiff therein [See the decision of this Court in Amit Kumar
Shaw vs. Farida Khatoon, (2005) 11 SCC 403 & A. Nawab John
vs. V.N. Subramaniyam, (2012) 7 SCC 738].
1