M.Arul v. Praveenraj
Case brief
What is this about?
Revision against order impleading subsequent property purchasers in a declaration suit. Court held purchasers are necessary parties under CPC but cannot claim better rights than the transferor during pendency.
What did the court decide?
Civil revision petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
What the court decided
C.R.P.No.2511 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.07.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.2511 of 2024
M.Arul
.. Petitioner
Vs.
- Praveenraj
- Aswathnarayanan
- Marappan
- The Sub-Registrar Karimangalam, Dharmapuri District. .. Respondents
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a purchaser of immovable property is a proper and necessary party to a suit filed prior to their acquisition despite litigation being pendent lien.
Whether a sale deed executed in violation of an interim injunction order prevents subsequent purchasers from being impleaded as parties in related litigation.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M.Arul
- respondent
Praveenraj
- respondent
Aswathnarayanan
- respondent
Marappan
- respondent
The Sub-Registrar Karimangalam, Dharmapuri District.
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court