IMPORTANT POINT
A person who expects to get a lease from the defendant in a suit for specific performance in the event of the suit being dismissed, cannot be said to be a person having some semblance of title, in the property in dispute.

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure ,1908- Order I Rule 10(2) -Impleadment of proper or necessary parties- Airport Authority of India , respondent 2 entered into a lease deed leasing Mumbai airport to appellant on “as is where is” basis for a period of 30 years for its operation, maintenance, development and expansion into a world class airport – A parcel of land measuring 31,000 sq.mts. which was part of airport was not made a part of the lease deed in view of a pending case filed by respondent 1- Appellant filed an application seeking impleadment as an additional defendant in pending suit for specific performance filed by respondent 1 against AAI, contending that its interest was likely to be directly affected if any relief was granted to respondent1-plaintiff in said suit- Single Judge dismissed appellant’s application holding that as appellant was yet to acquire any interest in the suit land and and as respondent1 was not a party to arrangement between AAI and appellant, court could not permit impleadment of appellant with reference to some future right which might accrue in future, after decision in the suit- Appeal –Dismissed by Division Bench of High Court-Appeal- On careful examination of facts of case, held that appellant was neither a necessary party nor a proper party-Appellant was neither a purchaser nor lessee of suit property and had no right, title or interest therein- Respondent 1-plaintiff in the suit had not sought any relief against appellant- Presence of appellant was not necessary for passing an effective decree in the suit for specific performance- Nor was its presence necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the matters in issue in the suit for specific performance filed by respondent1-plaintiff against AAI-A person who expects to get a lease from the defendant in a suit for specific performance in the event of suit being dismissed, cannot be said to be a person having some semblance of title, in the property in dispute- The fact that if AAI succeeded in the suit, suit land may also be leased to appellant was not sufficient to hold that appellant had any right, interest or a semblance of right or interest in suit property- When appellant was neither claiming any right or remedy against respondent1and when respondent1 was not claiming any right or remedy against appellant, in a suit for specific performance by respondent1 against AAI, appellant could not be a party-Appeal dismissed. (Paras 14 to 17)
       Necessary and Proper Party-A ‘necessary party’ is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court- If a ‘necessary party’ is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed- A ‘proper party’ is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in disputes in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made- If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff- The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance.(Para 8)
       Code of Civil Procedure ,1908-Order I of Rule 10(2)-Scope and Ambit of- The said sub-rule is not about right of a non-party to be impleaded as a party, but about the judicial discretion of the court to strike out or add parties at any stage of a proceeding- The discretion under the sub-rule can be exercised either suo moto or on the application of the plaintiff or the defendant, or on an application of a person who is not a party to the suit- The court can strike out any party who is improperly joined- The court can add anyone as a plaintiff or as a defendant if it finds that he is a necessary party or proper party- Such deletion or addition can be without any conditions or subject to such terms as the court deems fit to impose- In exercising its judicial discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code, court will of course act according to reason and fair play and not according to whims and caprice. (Para 12)
       Facts of the Case :
       Airport Authority of India , respondent 2 herein in the instant case entered into a lease deed leasing Mumbai airport to appellant on “as is where is” basis for a period of 30 years for its operation, maintenance, development and expansion into a world class airport. A parcel of land measuring 31,000 sq.mts. which was part of airport was not made a part of the lease deed in view of a pending case filed by respondent 1.Appellant’s case that it was expecting that litigation initiated by respondent1 would end and it would be able to get the said 31,000 sq.m. land also as it was in dire need of land for developing the airport. Appellant filed an application seeking impleadment as an additional defendant in pending suit for specific performance filed by respondent 1 against AAI, contending that its interest was likely to be directly affected if any relief was granted to respondent1-plaintiff in said suit. Single Judge dismissed appellant’s application holding that as appellant was yet to acquire any interest in the suit land and and as respondent1 was not a party to arrangement between AAI and appellant, court could not permit impleadment of appellant with reference to some future right which might accrue in future, after decision in the suit. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by Division Bench of High Court.
       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
       On careful examination of facts of case, held that appellant was neither a necessary party nor a proper party. Appellant was neither a purchaser nor lessee of suit property and had no right, title or interest therein. Respondent 1-plaintiff in the suit had not sought any relief against appellant. Presence of appellant was not necessary for passing an effective decree in the suit for specific performance. Nor was its presence necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the matters in issue in the suit for specific performance filed by respondent1-plaintiff against AAI.A person who expects to get a lease from the defendant in a suit for specific performance in the event of suit being dismissed, cannot be said to be a person having some semblance of title, in the property in dispute. The fact that if AAI succeeded in the suit, suit land may also be leased to appellant was not sufficient to hold that appellant had any right, interest or a semblance of right or interest in suit property. When appellant was neither claiming any right or remedy against respondent1and when respondent1 was not claiming any right or remedy against appellant, in a suit for specific performance by respondent1 against AAI, appellant could not be a party. Appeal was dismissed.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The court emphasized that a person who merely expects to obtain a lease in the future, contingent upon the dismissal of a suit, does not possess any semblance of title or interest in the property in dispute. Such an individual cannot be considered a necessary or proper party in a suit for specific performance (!) (!) .
The distinction between necessary and proper parties is clarified: a necessary party is one whose joinder is essential for the court to pass an effective decree; without such a party, the suit may be dismissed. A proper party, while not necessary, is someone whose presence would enable the court to adjudicate the matter fully and effectively (!) .
The court held that the appellant, who was neither a purchaser nor a lessee of the suit property and had no current right, title, or interest therein, was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit for specific performance initiated by the first respondent against the Airport Authority of India (!) (!) .
The appellant's claim that it was in possession of a pending court order demarcating the land and that this land might be included in the lease in the future was insufficient to establish a right or interest that would necessitate its joinder as a party (!) (!) .
The court reiterated that the mere expectation or potential future interest, especially when the individual does not seek relief against the plaintiff nor the defendant, does not warrant their impleadment in a suit for specific performance (!) .
The discretion to add or strike out parties under the relevant procedural rules is to be exercised judiciously, considering the facts and the interests of justice, and not based on speculative future rights (!) .
The case reaffirmed that the primary criterion for joinder is whether the person is a necessary or proper party for the effective and complete adjudication of the matter, which the appellant did not satisfy in this case (!) .
The appeal was ultimately dismissed, reinforcing that a person with only a future expectation of acquiring rights, without current legal interest or relief sought against the plaintiff, cannot be joined as a party to a suit for specific performance.

JUDGMENT

R.V.Raveendran, J. —

Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel.

2.The Airport Authority of India (second respondent herein, AAI for short) established under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (‘Act’ for short) to be responsible for the development, operation and maintenance of airports in India. The Government of India took a policy decision to amend the Act by Amendment Act 43 of 2003 enabling the AAI to lease the airport premises, to private operators with prior approval of the Central Government and assign its functions to its lessees except air traffic services and watch and ward. In pursuance of the policy of the government in this behalf, the AAI decided to entrust the work of modernisation and upgradation of the Mumbai Airport to a private operator, to serve the sharply increasing volume of passengers and for better utilisation of the Airport. AAI initiated a competitive bidding process in that behalf. In the information memorandum that was issued to the prospective bidders it was represented that the entire airport premises will be included in the transaction including all encroached land but excluding only the following areas : (i) New ATC tower; (ii) AAI staff colony; (iii) Hotel Leela Venture, and (iv) All retail fuel outlets outside the airport operational boundary.

3.Pursuant to the competitive bidding process, the Chhtrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai was handed over to the appellant for operation, maintenance, development and expansion into a world class airport under an agreement dated 4.4.2006. In pursuance of it, AAI entered into a lease deed dated 26.4.2006 leasing the Mumbai airport to the appellant on “as is where is” basis for a period of 30 years. The subject matter of the lease was described as “all the land (along with any buildings, constructions or immovable assets, if any, thereon) which is described, delineated and shown in Schedule I hereto, other than (i) any lands (along with any buildings, constructions or immovable assets, if any, thereon) granted to any third party under any existing lease(s), constituting the Airport on the date hereof; and (ii) any and all of the carved out assets”. Schedule I to the lease deed, instead of giving a detailed description of the demised property, referred to the map demarcating the demised premises annexed to the lease deed by way of description of the demised premises. The map annexed as Schedule I was the “plan showing the demised premises, indicating carved out assets and lands vested with IAF and Navy”. The carved out assets were : (1) new ATC tower; (2) & (2A) the NAD staff colony of AAI; (3) land leased to Hotel Leela Venture; (4) all retail fuel outlets which were outside the airport operational boundary; and (5) convention centre. The map also contains a note below the list of carved out assets, reading as under: “A : The parcel of land measuring 31,000 sq.mts. is currently not made a part of the lease deed but may become part of the demised premises subject to the court verdict”.

4.According to the appellant the said parcel measuring 31,000 sq.m. was also part of the airport that was to be handed over by AAI to appellant but it could not be included in view of a pending case (Suit No.6846 of 1999 on the file of the Bombay High Court) filed by the first respondent wherein the High Court had made an interim order dated 2.5.2001, relevant portion of which is extracted below :

“The Defendant Airport Authority should also separately demarcate an area of 31000 sq. meters for which the plaintiff is making a claim in this suit. After the land is so demarcated, a copy of the plan would be handed over to the Plaintiff through their advocate. The learned Counsel further states that the land admeasuring 31000 sq. meters, which would be separately demarcated will not be alienated, sold and transferred and no third party interest in that land would be created by the Defendants Airport Authority without seeking leave of this Court. He further sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 519

2010 (6) Supreme 78SUPREME COURT OF INDIAR V Raveendran and K S Radhakrishnan, JJ.Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. — AppellantversusRegency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. — RespondentsCivil Appeal No.4900 of 2010[Arising out of SLP [C] No.2085 of 2009]Decided on : 6-7-2010

IMPORTANT POINTA person who expects to get a lease from the defendant in a suit for specific performance in the event of the suit being dismissed, cannot be said to be a person having some semblance of title, in the property in dispute.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
A person who expects to get a lease from the defendant in a suit for specific performance in the event of the suit being dismissed, cannot be said to be a person having some semblance of title, in the property in dispute.