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

1975 Supreme(MP) 144

SHIV DAYAL, R.L.MURAB, U.N.BHACHAWAT
PANNE KHUSHALI – Appellant
Versus
JEEWANLAL MATHOO KHATIK – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.M.AGARWAL, P.L.MISHRA

BHACHAWAT, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff-non-applicant No. 1 filed suit (No. 56-A/ 69) in the Court of the second Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior for the specific performance of a contract, contending that the non-applicant No. 2 had entered into an agreement with him for the sale of the contracted! house to turn, but has failed to complete the sale and prayed for a decree directing the non-applicant No. 2 to complete the sale by executing and setting registered a sale-deed in his favour. The intervener applicants made an application for being joined as a party to the suit contending that the suit property is a coparcenery property and they as coparceners are the co-owners of it; the non- applicant No. 2 had neither a right to enter into an agreement for sale, nor has a right to sell it, nor any such act of his can bind their shares in it.

( 2 ) THE trial Court rejected the application, holding that the applicants cannot be added as parties to the suit against which the present revision was filed in this court. In view of the apparent conflict in the decisions of this Court in, roopkishore v Tarabai, Civil Revn. No. 473 of 1967, decided on March 3, 1970 =' (1970 MPWR (SN) 132 ). by Krishna





























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