Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.42 seconds)
Smt. Manju Goenka And Another vs Rajesh Kumar And Another on 16 November, 2009 cites

Jineshwardas (Dead) Through L. Rs. & Ors vs Smt. Jagrani & Anr on 26 September, 2003

In Bibi Zubaida Khatoon's case (supra), the Court has held that the transferee pendente lite should ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interest. In the aforesaid case, pendency of the suit for a long time was the reason given by the trial Court to reject the application for impleadment. However, in the present case, though the suit is pending since the year 1995, but the plaintiffs have not started their evidence even in the year 2005, when the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the oridinary rule as mentioned in the aforesaid judgment is to implead the transferee pendente lite. The relevant extract from the aforesaid judgment reads as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 193 - D Raju - Full Document

Lala Durga Prasad And Another vs Lala Deep Chand And Others on 18 November, 1953

In Durga Prasad and another Vs. Deep Chand and others AIR 1954 Supreme Court 75, the Court has considered the nature of decree required to be granted in a suit for specific performance of the contract when the vendor has transferred his interest in the suit property. The Court has considered three forms of decree. (i) To declare the subsequent purchase void as against the prior transferee and direct conveyance by the vendor alone; (ii) Both vendor and vendee should join; and (iii) execution of the conveyance by the subsequent purchaser C.R.No.63 of 2006 6 alone. The Court negated first and third option and held that proper form of the decree is to direct specific performance of the contract by directing the subsequent transferee to join in the conveyance. It was held to the following effect :
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 205 - V Bose - Full Document

Anup Singh And Anr. vs Smt. Chander Kanta And Ors. on 5 March, 1998

Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that C.R.No.63 of 2006 3 the petitioners are not to raise a plea that they are bona fide purchasers for value and consideration as they are the purchasers of the property after filing of the suit and that sale in their favour is hit by doctrine of lis pendens. But it is contended that in terms of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'), the petitioners have acquired title by virtue of registered sale deed on the basis of prior agreement to sell, therefore, the petitioners are necessary party as assignees of the original vendors. It is contended that none of the judgments referred to by the learned trial Court is to the effect that such a vendee in a suit for specific performance cannot be impleaded. He has relied upon Anup Singh Vs. Smt. Chander Kanta Pruthi 1998(1) P.L.R. 818, Ram Sarup Vs. Raminder Singh 2004(2) P.L.R. 247, Amit Kumar Shaw & Another Vs. Farida Khatoon and Another, AIR 2005 (SC) 2209.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 Next