TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner Added as Necessary Party in Land Sale Contract Suit, Court Recognizes Co-Sharer Title Rights.</h1> <h3>Harbans Singh Versus Badan Singh & Anr.</h3> The HC set aside the order of the Additional Civil Judge, allowing the petitioner to be impleaded as a party in the suit for specific performance of a ... - Issues involved: Challenge to the order dismissing application for impleading as party in a suit u/s Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure.The petitioner, brother of a party in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of land, sought to be impleaded as a necessary party due to being a co-sharer in the suit land as per jamabandi. The petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, leading to the challenge in the High Court.The petitioner contended that his status as a co-sharer in the suit land conferred upon him a semblance of title in the property, making him a necessary party in the suit. Citing the case of Sumtibai vs. Paras Finance Co., it was argued that a third party with a fair semblance of title or interest should be allowed to seek impleadment in such cases to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.On the other hand, the respondent argued that the petitioner had no actual interest in the suit property and therefore his application for impleadment was rightly dismissed. Reference was made to the cases of Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and Bharat Karondas Thakkar vs. M/s. Kiran Construction Co. to support this position.The High Court, considering the legal precedents cited, held that the petitioner had indeed shown a semblance of title in the property in dispute, aligning with the principles laid down in Sumtibai's case. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was allowed to be impleaded as a party to the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale of land.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
