D.S.TEWATIA, M.M.PUNCHHI
Aman Behal – Appellant
Versus
Aruna Kansal – Respondent
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
Banarsi Dass Durga Prashad V/s. Panna Lal Ram Richhpal Oswal
P.R. Nallathambi Goundan V/s. Vijaya Raghavan
Panne Khushali V/s. Jeewanlal Mathoo Khatik
V.D. Seetarama Mudaliar V/s. Komara Chettiar
Sadhu Behera V/s. Krishna Chandra Sutar
Bara Hanuman Temple Durgain, Amritsar V/s. Gurbux Lal Malhotra
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.