Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.48 seconds)
The Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd vs M/S Overseas Infrastructure ... on 20 August, 2009 cites

Sarvinder Singh vs Dalip Singh & Ors on 2 August, 1996

Reliance was also placed on Sarvinder Singh Vs. Dalip Singh and others reported in (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 539. In the said case Sarvinder Singh had already obtained a decree of declaration, that he was the owner of the suit property on the basis of a registered Will executed by his mother. In that suit the daughters of Hira Devi, were impleaded as defendants. One of the daughters was Rajinder Kaur. Subsequent to that decree which had became final, Sarvinder Singh filed another suit for declaration of his ownership on the basis of the I.A. No.13366/2008 in CS(OS) No.1368/2008 Page 16 of 26 same Will against the heirs of Rajinder Kaur. Since the said heirs of Rajinder Kaur alienated the self same lands to X and Y, the said X and Y moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code for being impleaded as defendants. The Supreme Court observed that though it may be open to the heirs of the Rajinder Kaur to resist the suit on any legally available or tenable grounds, those grounds were not available to the applicants. It was further made clear that the earlier decree on the basis of the Will having become final and as the applicants were claiming title only through the heirs of Rajinder Kaur who was a party to that decree they could not legally challenge the legality and validity of the said Will. It was for these reasons that the applicants were held to be neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 153 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Anil Kumar Singh vs Shivnath Mishra And Gadasa Guru on 24 October, 1994

The law of impleadment being what has been noticed above, are Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. and EXIM Bank necessary and proper parties in the suit? I shall first deal with Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. but before I do that, let me notice the objections raised by it to its impleadment. It says that it is a stranger to the proceedings. It has no privity of contract with the plaintiff and that it has entered into an independent contract with defendant No.1 dated July 12, 2008 with which the plaintiff has no right to interfere. It further says that the foundation of the original suit is the alleged concluded contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 and that the plaintiff by way of an application for „amendment-cum-impleadment‟ cannot be allowed to change the contours of the original plaint where it does not figure at all. As per it, it is not the relief sought against it which should form the basis for its impleadment but the averments made in the plaint. Those averments, it is stated, give rise to disputes, if any, between the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2. It has also taken an objection that assuming there is an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, such an agreement is not capable of being specifically enforced and that the only remedy available to the plaintiff is to sue for the alleged breach of the contract. Hence, it is argued that it is neither a necessary or a proper party, and in support, reliance was placed on Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Shivnath Mishra alias Gadasa Guru reported in (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 147. The facts of that case were that one Daulat Singh, father of the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of some land said to have been executed in his favour by one Shiv Nath Mishra. Pending decision in the suit, Daulat Singh died. The petitioner came I.A. No.13366/2008 in CS(OS) No.1368/2008 Page 15 of 26 on record as legal representative of Daulat Singh. He filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code seeking leave to amend the plaint and seeking to implead the respondent also as a party- defendant in the suit. The contention of the petitioner was that Shivnath Mishra, the vendor, had colluded with his sons and wife and had obtained a collusive decree in a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and by operation of the said decree, they became co-sharers of the property to be conveyed under the „Agreement to Sell‟ and, therefore, the respondent was a necessary and proper party to effectuate the ultimate decree of the specific performance that may be granted in favour of the petitioner. The Apex Court declined the relief on the ground that the suit of the plaintiff was based on the „Agreement to Sell‟ said to have been executed by the vendor and that the person who was sought to be impleaded as a respondent had acquired interest in the property by an independent decree which decree was not the subject matter of the suit and hence, without assailing the validity of the decree, those who acquired the right through the decree could not be dragged into the litigation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 180 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1