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>Assignee by Sale Impleaded in Property Suit, Highlighting Lis Pendens Exception in Specific Performance Cases.</h1> <h3>Jaswinder Kaur Versus Bhajan Kaur and Ors.</h3> The HC allowed the application for impleading the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC, in a suit for possession by specific ... Application for impleading the petitioner as party defendant No. 9 dismissed - Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC - specific performance of agreement to sell - vendee lis pendens or not - constructive notice of pendency of the suit - HELD THAT:- It is true that vendee lis pendens has no right to be impleaded under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act as the presence of subsequent vendee is not at all necessary for adjudication of the question between the plaintiff and the defendant. Doctrine of lis pendens is a doctrine based on the ground that it is necessary for the administration of justice that the decision of a Court in a suit should be binding not only on the litigating party, but on those, who derive title pendente lite. This provision does not intend to annul the conveyance or the transfer to render it subservient to the right of a party to the litigation. Since the controversy has arisen from a suit for specific performance in which petitioner has purchased the subject-matter of suit vide two sale deeds during pendency of the suit. Application for impleading the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC is allowed and the petitioner being assignee by sale is ordered to be impleaded as party defendant No. 9 in the suit. Issues: Application for impleading a party in a civil suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell; Whether the petitioner, as a subsequent purchaser, can be impleaded in the suit under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC.The judgment pertains to a revision petition against an order dismissing an application for impleading the petitioner as a party defendant in a civil suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell. The petitioner contended that she had purchased a portion of the disputed land through sale deeds executed after the suit was filed. The trial court dismissed the application, citing the petitioner as a vendee lis pendens. However, the High Court analyzed the timeline of events, noting that the suit was filed in 2007, and the petitioner acquired the land in 2007 and 2013, subsequently applying to be impleaded as an assignee by sale.The High Court observed that while a vendee lis pendens has no automatic right to be impleaded, Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act provides an exception for an assignee by sale in a suit for specific performance to join the proceedings. The court highlighted the importance of the doctrine of lis pendens for the administration of justice, emphasizing that it does not invalidate conveyances made during litigation. Referring to legal precedent, the court held that an assignee by sale in a suit for specific performance can be impleaded as a party to the suit.Based on the legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case, where the petitioner had acquired the subject matter of the suit during its pendency, the High Court allowed the application for impleading the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC. Consequently, the petitioner, as an assignee by sale, was ordered to be impleaded as party defendant No. 9 in the ongoing suit for possession by specific performance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
