If Party Seeking Possession Of Immovable Property Is Aware About Sale In Favour Of A Third Party, It Must Implead The Latter As An Objector

Case: Sarvinder Singh & Anr V. Vipul Tandon

Coram: Justice Amit Bansal

Case No.: EX.P. 95/2018

Court Observation: “The manner in which the Decree Holders took possession of the properties from the Objectors was ex facie unlawful. The Decree Holders were aware of the sale in favour of the Objectors and also the possession of the Objectors in the aforesaid portions of the suit property. Despite this knowledge, the Decree Holders did not implead the Objectors in the suit filed by them. Even after the decree was passed, no legal notice was served on the Objectors to vacate the property, nor were they made parties in the execution proceedings and straightaway they were dispossessed from the portions of the suit property, of which they had been in a settled occupation for a long period of time.”

“It is a matter of record that the Objectors have been in a settled possession of the aforesaid properties on the basis of registered Sale Deeds executed as far back in 1999 and 2002. The Decree Holders could not have unilaterally dispossessed the aforesaid Objectors, while seeking to execute the decree dated 3rd May, 2016 passed by this Court in a suit, where the Objectors were deliberately not made parties despite the Decree Holders/plaintiffs being aware of their possession of the aforesaid portions of the suit property. Even after the decree was passed, no legal notice was served on the Objectors to vacate the property, nor were they made parties in the execution proceedings and straightaway they were dispossessed from the portions of the suit property, of which they had been in a settled occupation for a long period of time.”

“Merely because the letters of administration granted in favour of the administrator were set aside at a later point of time, would not undo or invalidate intermediate acts performed by the administrator, while the letters of administration granted in his favour duly existed, unless the same are shown to be fraudulent or collusive.”

Previous Posts

(Order XXII Rule 3 CPC) Delay In Filing Application For Substitution Of Legal Heirs Must Be Sufficiently Explained: Delhi High Court

Prohibition Of Benami Transaction Act Opportunity For Cross-Examination Need Not Be Provided At The Stage Of Show-Cause Notice: Madras HC

High Court Directs NIT Srinagar To Pay ₹5 Lacs Compensation Over Unjustifiable Delay In Appointing Candidates Selected As Jr. Engineers

Document Admitted Or Denied By Witness During Cross Examination Cannot Be Returned, Has To Be Necessarily Placed On Court File: Delhi High Court

Whether Appropriate Govt In Industrial Dispute Concerning Person Working At Mine Office Is Centre Or State Depends On Nature Of Work: Gujarat HC

J&K&L High Court Orders Probe By Anti-Corruption Bureau Into Leakage Of PSA Detention Order Even Before Its Execution

Telangana High Court Holds Telangana Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2017 To Be Unconstitutional

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Grasim’s Plea Against Increase In Employees Retirement Age To 60 Yrs

Fixing Time Period For Completing Disciplinary Proceedings Causing More Complications, Says Supreme Court

Ring Of Truth: Supreme Court Lays Down Principles For Appreciation Of Ocular Evidence In Criminal Case

CBI Investigation Can’t Be Ordered On Mere Asking By Defacto Complainant; Mere Allegations Against Police Not Sufficient: Supreme Court

Preliminary Assessment To Try Juvenile As Adult – JJB Should Mandatorily Take Assistance Of Psychologist/Psycho-Social Workers: Supreme Court

S. 50 Of NDPS Act- Presence Of Magistrate During Search Of Contraband Articles Not Mandatory If Accused Waives His Right: Delhi High Court Download Judgement

Keywords

Seeking Possession Of Immovable Property, Sale In Favour Of A Third Party