Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)
Subhash S/O Manikrao Bhosale And Ors vs Prabhakar S/O Vyankatesh Kango ... on 28 September, 2012
cites
Guruswamy Nadar vs P.Lakshmi Ammal(D) Through Lrs. & Ors on 1 May, 2008
10] By careful reading the tests as laid down by the Apex Court
and applying these tests to the present matter, it is clear that respondents
i.e. the applicants-interveners, have purchased the property and their claim
is not adversely to the claim of vendor. It is also clear that as respondents-
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
A. Nawab John & Ors vs V. N. Subramaniyam on 3 July, 2012
Mr. Sharma,
placed heavy reliance on the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the
matter of A. Nawab John and others vs. V.N. Subramaniyam in reply to
the ground raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs on the
principle of transfer pendente lite under Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882. Mr. Sharma submitted that the Apex Court while
considering the divergence of opinion in respect of the issue, whether a
pendente lite purchaser is entitled as a matter of right to get impleaded in
the suit, observed thus :
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Sanjay Verma vs Manik Roy And Ors on 8 December, 2006
'12. ... The mere pendency of a suit does not prevent
one of the parties from dealing with the property
constituting the subject-matter of the suit. The section only
postulates a condition that the alienation will in no
manner affect the rights of the other party under any
decree which may be passed in the suit unless the property
was alienated with the permission of the Court (Sanjay
Verma vs. Manik Roy, (2006) 13 SCC 608, Para 12).'
Sm. Saila Bala Dassi vs Sm. Nirmala Sundari Dassi And Another on 14 February, 1958
20. This Court on more than one occasion held that
when a pendente lite purchaser seeks to implead himself as a
party-defendant to the sit, such application should be liberally
considered. This Court also held in Saila Bala Dassi vs. Nirmala
Sundari Dassi (AIR 1958 SC 394) that, "justice requires", a
pendente lite purchaser "should be given an opportunity to
protect his rights".
Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr vs Farida Khatoon & Anr on 13 April, 2005
21. There is some divergence of opinion regarding the
question, whether a pendente lite purchaser is entitled, as a
matter of right, to get impleaded in the suit, this Court in Amit
::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:21 :::
Common Judgment 16 WP Nos.2945/11 & 2946/11
Kumar Shaw vs. Farida Khatoon (2005) 11 SCC 403.
1