Bonafide purchaser
chitrarasu
(Querist) 10 October 2013
This query is : Resolved
'A' purchase one property in 2006. The Vendor having a property oral partition, the vendor having 6 coparceners, all are maried, now (2011) file a partition suit for 1/2 share by one sister against only two coparcener defendent (colluding) and Vendee'A'. now the suit was degreed, what happen the vendor A? how the judgement was legaly findings? pls help Vendor 'A'
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 10 October 2013
Vendee should file an appeal against the decree illegally passed without impleading the proper parties.
Ms.Nirmala P.Rao
(Expert) 10 October 2013
You should've exercised reasonable diligence while purchasing the property. However, if you are a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of the defective title of the vendor to the property in question under certain circumstances you are protected. If the vendor has a defective title to the property he can't pass a better tittle to you.You should;ve got added as a party to the suit to determine your rights., Since you didn't do so, the judgment is binding on you. You file a suit once again against the vendor who deceived you and can recover your loss from him. Please press the thank you button on my profile if you wish to thank me
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 11 October 2013
I agree with Ms. Nirmala P Rao to a great extent except the fact that at this belated stage the vendee cannot file fresh suit
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 11 October 2013
Agree with the expert Ms.Nirmala P.Rao.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 12 October 2013
Criminal complaint can be filed against the vendor in the given facts.
chitrarasu
(Querist) 12 October 2013
Dear sir,
private complaint or police case?
or-
he have any opportunity for deformation case or cheating case?
ajay sethi
(Expert) 13 October 2013
agree with experts
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 13 October 2013
If vendee was not party to the suit being talked for partition ,the judgement is not binding on him because vendor has already transferred his interest ,less or more than he owned,much earlier,in 2006 to suit filed in 2011.Vendee was a necessary party to the suit but it was plaintiff's duty to implead him or vendor duty to raise objection that suit was bad for non impleadment of a necessary party who the vendee was.It would be harsh on a person to expect that he would know cases going on in courts to inquire in which of them he should apply for his impleadment,the obligation is on parties before court or on court itself not on one who is left.
It would not be construed as judgement in rem to bind vendee left due to collusion of vendor.
chitrarasu
(Querist) 14 October 2013
vendee for D3 vendor for D1 and plaintiff for vendor sister( she is colluding)
