Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.15 seconds)
Ram Bilash Pandey And Ors. vs Jai Narayan Gupta And Ors. on 21 December, 1983 cites

Panne Khushali And Anr. vs Jeewanlal Mathoo Khatik And Anr. on 25 November, 1975

7. On behalf of plaintiff-opposite parties 1 and 2 reliance has been placed on a Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Panne Khushali v. Jeewanlal Mathoo Khatik, AIR 1976 Madh Pra 148. The facts of that case are identical with the facts of the present case. There also intervenes sought to be joined as parties in a suit for specific performance on the ground that they were members of a joint Hindu family and were interested in the subject matter of the suit The Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, after a careful examination of the various decisions of different Courts, came to the conclusion that the interveners were neither necessary parties nor proper parties. They could not be given the benefit of Order I, Rule 10 (2) of the Code. It accordingly turned down the request of the intervenes to be impleaded as parties to the suit for specific performance.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

Shivshankareppa Mahadevappa ... vs Shivappa Parappa Kupati on 9 March, 1942

9. Learned counsel for the interveners-applicants has pleaded that I should not follow the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. He has invited my attention to the decisions of the case of Rasiklal Shankerlal Son! v. Natverlal Shankerlal Upadhyaya, AIR 1975 Guj 178 and the case of Shivashankareppa Mahadevappa Parakan-hatti v. Shivappa Parappa Kupati, AIR 1943 Bom 27. In these cases, the principle that in a suit for specific performance, the parties to the contract are the only necessary parties to the suit has been stressed. To this general rule, an exception has been engrafted and that is to the effect that if a person is in possession of a property in respect of which a suit for specific performance is filed, he should also be impleaded as a party thereto if he claims a title adverse to the vendor. This exception is based on the principle that the plaintiff of the suit will ultimately obtain possession against the person who is in actual possession of the property and claims a title adverse to the vendors. If such person is also brought on record and given a chance to contest the suit, there is no likelihood of inconvenience to the purchaser, and multiplicity of legal proceedings is also avoided. In the instant case, the intervener-applicants were not in possession of the property which was the subject matter of the suit for specific performance. The Gujarat and Bombay High Courts' decisions, therefore, lend no support to the contention advanced on behalf of the intervener-applicants.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1