Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


TARSEM DEVI v. NARESH KUMAR & Ors. - CR-192-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 52 (9 January 2006)

C.R. No. 192 of 2004 (1)


C.R. No. 192 of 2004.

Date of Decision: 24.1.2006

Tarsem Devi ...Petitioner.


Naresh Kumar and others. ...Respondent.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Shri Parveen Kumar, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Shri Akshay Bhan, Advocate,

for respondent no.5.


The plaintiff is in revision petition against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 21.11.2003, whereby Vaibhav Gandotra was ordered to be impleaded as a defendant.

The plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 28.8.2000 allegedly executed by defendant no.1 Naresh Kumar. In the said suit, an application was filed alleging therein by Vaibhav Gandotra that he is a co-parcener with Naresh Kumar defendant C.R. No. 192 of 2004 (2)

no. 1 and, therefore, his father has no right to enter into an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, it is alleged that he is a necessary party in the present suit. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court.

The applicant as a co-parcener has no right to challenge the execution of agreement to sell. The right, if any, would arise only on completion of sale on the grounds permissible in law. He cannot seek any restraint order against the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family to execute any sale in favour of a third person, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar and another Vs. Ram Parkash and others AIR 1988 Supreme Court 576. Keeping in view the principles laid down in the said judgment, I am of the opinion that the applicant-Vaibhav Gandotra cannot seek impleadment in the suit on the ground that he is a co-parcener. He has no right to challenge the action of Karta before the completion of sale.

Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the application filed by the applicant- respondent Vaibhav Gandotra is dismissed.

24.1.2006. (Hemant Gupta)

ds Judge

C.R. No. 192 of 2004 (3)


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.