9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Specific performance of agreement of re-conveyance, impleadment of assignees in execution petition, delay in filing applications, right of assignees to seek re-conveyance.
Specific performance of agreement of re-conveyance: The case involved the execution of sale deeds and subsequent agreement for re-conveyance of properties. Legal representatives of the original parties were brought into the litigation after their demise. Assignees filed applications to be impleaded in the appeal pending in the Supreme Court, but the applications were dismissed as the appeal itself was being disposed of on merits. The Master of the High Court issued orders for possession and re-conveyance of the property, leading to a series of applications and appeals. The Division Bench held that the order dismissing the applications was made without notice to the applicants and without their knowledge, and that the question of limitation was closely linked to the merits of the controversy. Impleadment of assignees in execution petition: The assignees filed applications to be impleaded as parties in the execution petition, which led to a series of orders and appeals. The Single Judge modified the order of the Master, stating that the applicants were entitled to re-conveyance of the property in dispute in respect of their share, subject to separate proceedings. An appeal by Matha Prasad against this order was dismissed by the Division Bench, leading to a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. Delay in filing applications: The assignees filed applications to set aside an order and condone a delay of 971 days in filing the applications. The applications were initially dismissed by the learned Judge as being barred by limitation. However, the Division Bench allowed the appeal against this order, stating that the delay had been properly explained by the applicants. Right of assignees to seek re-conveyance: The Division Bench examined the issues of limitation and the right of the assignees to seek re-conveyance of the property. The Court observed that the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the applications without notice to the assignees was not sustainable. The Division Bench's decision to go into the merits of the controversy was set aside, and the matters were remanded for a re-hearing on merits, with a request for priority consideration due to the long-pending litigation. This judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness, proper notice to parties, and the distinction between issues of limitation and merits in legal proceedings.
|
