Or.1, rule 10 of C.P.C.- suit for specific performance - purchasers pending suit filed impleading petition - their lordships allowed the same subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff with a condition that they cannot be permitted to take defences which are not available to their vendors -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPROTS

Or.1, rule 10 of C.P.C.- suit for specific performance - purchasers pending suit filed impleading petition - their lordships allowed the same with a rider that they are permitted to take defence other than their vendors - subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff with a condition that
they cannot be permitted to take defences which are not available to their vendors -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPROTS

It is well settled in law that in case of impleadment of
parties, it is not the jurisdiction of the Court, but the judicial
discretion which has to be exercised keeping in mind all the
facts and circumstances of a particular case.
In the present
case, the application is filed by persons, who claimed to have
purchased a part of property under a registered sale deed
pending the suit.
Though they ought to have been aware of
the paper publication taken by the Plaintiff prior to the
institution of the suit and the pendency of the suit, as the
vendors were made parties to the proceedings, their legal
rights in the property would be affected by the proposed
decree, if it is passed in favour of the plaintiff.
The petitioners
did not explain the reason for filing the application belatedly
after five years.
Almost all the defendants in the suit have not
contested.
Though defendant No.9 filed a written statement,
he did not participate in the subsequent proceedings.
  In the circumstances, justice would demand the
application of the petitioners be permitted subject to payment
of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff with a condition that
they cannot be permitted to take defences which are not
available to their vendors -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPROTS

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.