The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking review of an order refusing to implead the applicants as defendants in a property suit, holding that an agreement alone does not create title without registration.
Writ petition dismissed; impugned order of dismissal of chamber summons upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
GAG
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
Writ Petition No.5316 Of 2012.
Dr.Urvashi Arora
:: Applicant.
Versus
Smt.Gurpreet Kaur Alagh & Ors.
:: Respondents.
Mr. R.D. Motkari i/b. Ms. Archana Khan, Advocate for the Applicant.
None present for the Respondents.
CORAM :: RANJIT MORE, J. DATED :: 17th December, 2012.
P.C. :-
By the impugned order, the applicants' Chamber Summons No.100 Of 2011 for impleading them as a party defendant in Short Cause Suit No.2438 Of 2010 came to be dismissed by the Judge, City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Goregaon, Borivali Divn., Mumbai.
[2] Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has filed Short Cause Suit No.2438 Of 2010 in City Civil Court, Bombay against Resp.Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claimed the relief of injunction restraining respondent No.4 from causing any obstructions to them in obtaining possession in respect of the suit flat from respondent No.3.
[3] The applicants claim that they have entered into an agreement with respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in respect of the suit flat and parted with an amount of Rs.15 Lakhs and, therefore, prayed for impleading them as a party defendant in the said suit. The submission has no merit. The applicants claim
2
that they entered into an agreement with respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4 however, it is settled position that agreement does not create any interest in the property, in view of the provisions of Section 54 of T.P.Act. The applicants at the most claim specific performance of this agreement. The applicants, in fact has filed such suit. Presence of the applicants is not necessary for effective adjudication of the suit. In that view of the matter, I do not find any error in the impugned order, which would enable me to interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the chamber summons for impleading applicants as party defendants in a property suit should be allowed.
Whether judicial review under Article 227 is applicable when the underlying claim lacks merit under the Transfer of Property Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N/AReferred
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr. Urvashi Arora
Smt. Gurpreet Kaur Alagh & Ors.
RANJIT MORE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
