SEENIVASAN versus PETER JEBARAJ & ANR.

SEENIVASAN versus PETER JEBARAJ & ANR.

Impleadment of a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC takes effect only upon service of summons, not from date of filing application. Sales by an impleaded party prior to service of summons are not hit by lis pendens, and such sales validly convey title; subsequent transferees acquire absolute title.

Parties
Appellant: Seenivasan; Respondent: Peter Jebaraj
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Impleadment of Parties, Effect of Impleadment Date, Lis Pendens, Title Transfer During Litigation
Civil Procedure Property Law Impleadment of Parties Effect of Impleadment Date Lis Pendens Title Transfer During Litigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seenivasan

Appellant

Peter Jebaraj

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the date of effect of impleadment of a person as defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC?
  2. 2 Do sales by an impleaded party before service of summons convey valid title?
  3. 3 Does Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act (lis pendens) apply to such sales?

Ratio Decidendi

Impleadment of a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC takes effect only upon service of summons, not from date of filing application. Sales by an impleaded party prior to service of summons are not hit by lis pendens, and such sales validly convey title; subsequent transferees acquire absolute title.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs