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

1986 Supreme(P&H) 97

D.S.TEWATIA, M.M.PUNCHHI
Aman Behal – Appellant
Versus
Aruna Kansal – Respondent


Judgment

D.S.TEWATIA, J.

1. The short question, in this revision petition from an order of the trial Court dismissing the application of the petitioner under O.1, R.10 of the Civil P. C. (for short the Code ), is as to whether in a suit for specific performance by the purchaser against the Karta of a family the coparcener is a necessary party to the suit or one without he being there, the question arising in the suit for specific performance cannot be effectively or completely adjudicated upon.

2. The aforementioned question has to be answered in the light of the facts which can be stated thus. One Nand Kishore Behl purchased a plot No. 82 located in Civil Lines, Ludhiana, on 14th Oct., 1944. He died in the year 1954 leaving behind five sons namely, Jagdish Lal, Kanti Kumar, Saish Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Baldev Krishan. Baldev Krishan, out of them separated his share from the Hindu Undivided family in question on 1st April, 1976. The memorandum of the partition dt. 5th April, 1976 accorded to him inter alia 1/5th share in the said plot No. 82. Baldev Krishan by two separate agreements executed on 24th April, 1979 sold out his 1/5th share in the said plot to Aruna Kansal and her husba














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