Search Results for "section 52 transfer of property act"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Enhances Child Maintenance and Grants Interim Medical Maintenance ...
Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Eschew Proof Affidavit in Probate Proceedings. ...

Search Results for "section 52 transfer of property act"

17 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 17 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Refusal of Ad-Interim Injunction in Property Dispute — Holds That Trial Court Must Consider Documents Prima Facie and That Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act Does Not Substitute Injunction

27 Sep 2016

The appellant, Durga Bearing (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai, dated 10 August 2016, wh...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Impleadment of Subsequent Purchaser in Suit for Specific Performance — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 52 Does Not Bar Transfer Pendente Lite, But Purchaser Must Be Heard Before Final Decree. The court held that a subsequent purchaser of suit property is a necessary and proper party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, and amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to incorporate subsequent events should be allowed.

9 Oct 2014

The appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a property. The original plaintiffs (appellants) filed Suit No.1241 of ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Subsequent Purchaser to Join as Plaintiff Despite Lis Pendens — Order I Rule 10(2) CPC Not Barred by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. Transfer pendente lite does not preclude joinder of subsequent purchaser for effective adjudication of suit.

18 Jan 2014

The petitioner, Yogesh s/o Balaji Misar, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 20-11-2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bramhapuri, ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Amendment in Plaint to Include Relief Against Transferee Pendente Lite in Property Dispute. Transfer of Property Act Section 52 Applies to Bind Transferee Pendente Lite by Decree.

4 Jul 2013

The petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No.742 of 1996 seeking declaration and permanent mandatory injunction against the respondents regarding suit ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Impleadment of Purchaser in Pending Eviction Suit — Lis Pendens Does Not Bar Impleadment Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Purchaser of suit property during pendency of litigation is entitled to be impleaded to protect her interest, as the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 only binds the purchaser by the decree, not prohibits impleadment.

19 Sep 2017

The petitioner, Minalini Lalit Modi, purchased the suit flat from the tenant (respondent no.2) during the pendency of an eviction suit filed by the la...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Impleadment of Pendente Lite Transferee in Property Suit — Doctrine of Lis Pendens Does Not Render Transfer Void Ab Initio. The Court held that a transferee with knowledge of pending litigation may be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC if necessary for effective adjudication, and the High Court erred in nullifying the sale deed based on Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

21 Jan 2022

The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against the dismissal of an impleadment application by the Rajasthan High Court. The appellant, along with others,...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Order Allowing Impleadment in Regular Appeal — Assignment of Decree Without Court Permission Invalid Under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. The court held that any assignment or creation of interest pendente lite requires prior permission of the court under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, and without such permission, the assignee cannot be impleaded as a party.

23 Jun 2026

The petitioners, who were plaintiffs No.2 to 6 in a suit, filed a Regular Appeal (R.A.No.31/2022) before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at R...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge to Impleadment of Subsequent Purchasers in Partition Appeal. Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allows joinder of parties whose presence is necessary for effective adjudication, even if purchase is during pendency of litigation under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

9 Jun 2017

The petitioners, original plaintiffs in a partition suit, filed Regular Civil Suit No.268/2008 seeking half share in suit lands bearing Gat No.151 and...

High Court

Karnataka High Court Dismisses KSFC's Petition to Implead in Specific Performance Suit. Mortgagee is not a necessary party to a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale.

5 Mar 2015

The Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC) filed writ petitions challenging the order of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore, dated ...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Order to Implead Plaintiff in Suit for Specific Performance — Petitioner Not a Necessary Party Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Subsequent purchaser pendente lite cannot claim impleadment as a matter of right; decree binds all persons claiming under vendor.

13 Apr 2015

The petitioner, Smt. Lakshmamma, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.07.2013 ...

1 2

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)