https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311177 In a suit for bare injunction relating to four items of property, a subsequent purchaser who acquired only one item after the suit was filed lacked locus to seek impleadment and restoration after the plaintiff's death. The court noted that she had no subsisting cause of action to continue the suit as framed, and the right to sue did not survive to her on these facts, especially since she sought restoration of the entire suit despite purchasing only one item. The Madras HC found that the trial court erred in allowing both impleadment and restoration, and the impugned order was liable to be set aside. en-us Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Dec 2023 19:45:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311177 In a suit for bare injunction relating to four items of property, a subsequent purchaser who acquired only one item after the suit was filed lacked locus to seek impleadment and restoration after the plaintiff's death. The court noted that she had no subsisting cause of action to continue the suit as framed, and the right to sue did not survive to her on these facts, especially since she sought restoration of the entire suit despite purchasing only one item. The Madras HC found that the trial court erred in allowing both impleadment and restoration, and the impugned order was liable to be set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311177