MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
RAM SAHAI – Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE RAJASTHAN, AJMER – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points:
The court emphasized that a person who acquires an interest in the suit property during the pendency of litigation, in violation of a restraint or stay order, is not entitled to be impleaded as a party to the suit (!) (!) .
The sale of property during the pendency of litigation in violation of court orders is considered invalid and does not confer any valid title or interest upon the purchaser (!) (!) .
The conduct of the purchaser, especially if clandestine or in breach of court orders, disqualifies them from being considered a bonafide purchaser eligible for impleadment (!) (!) .
Delay in filing applications for impleadment, particularly when coupled with clandestine transactions or willful disobedience of court orders, justifies the rejection of such applications (!) (!) .
The court has the discretion to deny impleadment if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct, clandestine dealings, or has acted in violation of restraint orders, especially when there is a significant delay in making such applications (!) (!) .
The principles governing the impleadment of a subsequent purchaser include that the applicant must have acted in good faith, filed the application within a reasonable time after acquiring knowledge of the litigation, and not engaged in any clandestine or disobedient conduct (!) .
In this case, the applicant's sale was executed in violation of the court’s restraint order, and the applicant was aware of the ongoing litigation and stay orders, which disqualifies them from being considered a bonafide purchaser (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the applications seeking the applicant’s impleadment due to their misconduct, clandestine sale, and delay, reaffirming that such conduct disentitles them from participation in the proceedings (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or assistance with drafting related legal documents.
This order will decide applications No. 56498/2012 (in W.P. No. 1134/2008) and 56500/2012 (in W.P. No. 3721/2008) filed by applicant Utthan Township and Land Development Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur through its authorised signatory Shri Banwari Lal Arya, seeking its impleadment as party-respondent in both these writ petitions.
2. Writ Petition No. 1134/2008 has been filed by the petitioners, Ram Sahai, Ganesh Lal, Bansi Lal, Brij Mohan and Babu Lal, who purchased agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 151/1, new Khasra Nos. 349, 350, 351, 347/15252 and 348/1253, measuring 24 Bigha situated at village Bhatton Ki Gali, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur by registered sale deed dated 09.03.1981, from Raghunath and Bhagwana. This land was then mutated in their name on 12.06.1981. The Parcha Settlement dated 19.09.1987 was prepared by Assistant Settlement Officer, Tehsil Amer, Post Sikar showing measurement of the aforesaid land as 4.62 hectares whereas according to petitioners, actual size of the land was much more than that. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred appeal for correction of measurement of land before the Land Settlement and Land Record Officer, Sikar. Since neighbours of the s
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.