Susila v. R.K.Kumar
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an interlocutory order allowing a subsequent purchaser to be impleaded as a second plaintiff. The Court affirmed the impleadment but clarified that the purchaser cannot claim rights superior to his vendor.
What did the court decide?
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; connected M.P. dismissed; no order as to costs.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 10.07.2013
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN
C.R.P. (PD) No.2164 of 2013
and
M.P. No.1 of 2013
- Susila
- Dhanakodi 3. Manohar ... Petitioners
versus
- R.K.Kumar plaintiff 2. M.Perumal 3. Sankar ... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 05.11.2012 made in I.A. No.624 of 2012 in O.S. No.32 of 2011 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a subsequent purchaser impleaded as a plaintiff can claim rights greater than those available to his vendor or prior owner.
Whether the order allowing impleadment of a subsequent purchaser as a plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title warrants revision under Article 227.
Whether a lis pendens purchaser needed to implead can succeed to a better title than his previous owner conveyed to him.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Susila
- petitioner
Dhanakodi
- petitioner
Manohar
- respondent
R.K.Kumar
- respondent
M.Perumal
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court