SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Mad) 15

S.PALANIVELU
V. Ravimenon – Appellant
Versus
R. Ebinessar & Others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:P. Valliappan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, Anuradha Balaji, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner is the first defendant in O.S. No.144 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif at Alandur. The first respondent/Plaintiff has filed the said Suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and the third respondent herein. Pending trial of the Suit, the first respondent filed an Application in I.A.No.2920 of 2006 under Order 1, Rule 10(ii) of Civil Procedure Code to implead the second respondent herein as the Second Plaintiff in the Suit.

2. In the affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is affirmed that he has sold the suit property in favour of the second respondent on 06.02.2004 and even though the sale was made during the pendency of the Suit, he has to be impleaded in the Suit.

3. The Petition was resisted by the petitioner in his counter by stating that the first respondent is an encroacher of the property belonging to him and the sale in favour of the second respondent is not at all valid and that there is no need to implead him as a party to the Suit.

4. The learned District Munsif, Alandur has allowed the Application by observing that even though the proposed party is a subsequent purchaser, he is a necessary party for deciding th
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top