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

2011 Supreme(P&H) 655

A.N.JINDAL
Mittar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Bhajan Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate.
For the Respondents No.1, 2 & 4 to 12:Mr. Gurnam Kaur Turka, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Mr. A.N. Jindal, J.:- This petition assails the order dated 29.4.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rajpura declining to implead Balbir Kumar and Seth Chand as defendants No.14 and 15 being the subsequent vendees from defendants No.7 to 12 during the pendency of the suit.

2. The factual background of the case is that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming themselves to be the owners of the suit property while tracing their rights in the same prior to 26.1.1950. Now they have stated that since the defendants No.7 to 12 have sold the land measuring 11 kanals 18 marlas out of the suit land to Balbir Kumar and Seth Chand on 17.10.2008, they are necessary parties to the suit. The sale made during the pendency of the suit being wrong, illegal, null and void is liable to be ignored as they are also hit by the principles of lis pendens.

3. The defendants- respondents put in appearance and contested the application on the ground that the subsequent purchasers pendente lite are not necessary parties, however, they have admitted that the defendant Nos. 7 to 12 have sold the land measuring 11 kanals 18 marlas,







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