CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT : 17.12.2019.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 21.02.2020.
JUDGMENT :
The appellants (stranger purchasers), have challenged the
order dated 09.10.2015, passed in Civil Misc. Application ... 2020 03:09:59 :::
Judgment sa502.15
4
4. Appellants [stranger purchasers] have claimed that the
suit for specific performance bearing Special Civil Suit
laid down, so far as this Presidency is concerned :-
(1). A stranger-purchaser of the undivided share of a coparcener in a joint Hindu family ... confined to a particular portion of the family estate." A stranger-purchaser might get possession with the consent of the then coparceners: surely
laid down, so far as this Presidency is concerned:
(1) A stranger-purchaser of the undivided share of a co-parcener in a joint Hindu ... confined to a particular portion of the family estate." A stranger-purchaser might get possession with the consent of the then co-parceners: surely
laid down, so far as this presidency is concerned:
(1) A stranger-purchaser of the undivided share of a coparcener in a joint Hindu family ... confined to a particular portion of the family estate.
6. A stranger-purchaser might get possession with the consent of the then coparceners : surely
Kamlesh Jaysukhlal Bhuta And Anr vs Vasantben Ramnikhlal Bhuta ( Deleted ... on 2 January, 2025
Author
stranger to intrude himself upon the privacy of a joint Hindu Family residence. The question in such a case, that the stranger purchaser has been ... force, is, in my opinion, immaterial. In either case the stranger purchaser, who is a defendant to the suit of the members of the joint
immoral purpose, and the execution creditor purchases, or, if a stranger purchases, and has notice of, or upon inquiry could have ascertained, the illegal
sale on the 19th March the mortgagee himself had not purchased, but a stranger or outsider had, then such purchaser would have stood liable ... these consequences, which would be inevitable in the case of a stranger purchaser, should be avoided because the mortgagee was purchaser himself.
11. The above
substitute for himself, or rather for Dayashankar, the nominal purchaser, a stranger-purchaser. As stated by Jessel M.K. in Earl of Egmont v. Smith ... view of my finding that Pranshankar was not really a stranger-purchaser but merely a nominee of his father Narbheshankar. [After recording the findings
Court has consistently taken the view that a stranger auction purchaser is not a representative of either the judgment-debtor or the decree-holder ... their claim in the present suit is brought against a stranger auction-purchaser, who is neither a party to the suit nor the representative
