Back
M.S.SONAK, MOHIT S.SHAH
Nitin Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
Dinyar Pheroz Dubash – Respondent
Key Points: - The court discusses the burden of proving good faith for a subsequent purchaser under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, and that it is on the purchaser at issue (!) (!) (!) . - The decision addresses the test to determine whether a purchaser claims under the vendor or has an independent/adverse title, affecting whether impleadment is permissible (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment sets aside a prior order and grants leave to amend to include a subsequent purchaser as party, and outlines the scope of amendments and the effect on interim relief, with respect to specific performance against two plots (CTS No. 725 and CTS No. 515-C) [4000483650047][4000483650048] (!) (!) (!) . - It explains that where a subsequent purchaser is a bona fide purchaser without notice, they may be protected, and the decree may require the vendor to execute conveyance with the subsequent purchaser joining in passing title to the plaintiff (!) (!) [4000483650040][4000483650041]. - The Court cites and distinguishes various precedents (Sopan S. Sable, Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, Shree Kamal Constructions) to articulate the permissible scope of impleadment and the form of relief (!) (!) [4000483650039][4000483650033][4000483650043]. - The interim relief analysis considers lis pendens, notices, and balance of convenience in relation to CTS No. 515-C and CTS No. 725 [4000483650052][4000483650053]. - The final order grants leave to amend and restricts interim relief to CTS No. 725, disposing of appeals with no costs (!) (!) (!) [4000483650056]
M.S. Sonak, J.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 28 October 2013 in Chamber Summons No. 2087 of 2011 in Suit No. 1241 of 2007 declining the appellants (original plaintiffs) leave to implead subsequent purchaser of the suit property and for consequential amendments to the plaint.
2. We have heard Mr. Shailesh Shah, learned senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 5 (subsequent purchaser), Mr. Ramchandran N. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (original defendant Nos. 1 to 3) and Ms. Usha R. Tiwari for respondent No.4 (original defendant No.4). With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up not merely this appeal, but also Notice of Motion No. 2308 of 2007 in Suit No. 1241 of 2007 (Motion seeking interim reliefs in the Suit), for final hearing and disposal.
3. For the purposes of present appeal, the parties shall be referred to by their descriptions in the trial court, i.e., the appellants shall be referred to as the plaintiffs, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as the defendants and respondent No. 5 as the 'subsequent purchaser', for the sake of convenience.
4. By four separate agreements dated 2 January
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
