Back
1991 Supreme(SC) 805
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, V.RAMASWMI (II), YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.
New Red Bank Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Terai Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Civil appeal No. 3569 of 1991
Decided On : 09-09-1991
The court emphasized the importance of trying related suits together and the need for proper impleading of parties to the suit.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Suit for Specific Performance - Court sets aside decree for specific performance and directs trial of two suits together - Orders cancellation of sale deed
Fact of the Case:
The court found that the decree for specific performance granted in Suit No. 240 of 1990 could not be sustained due to the pendency of an earlier suit, Suit No. 8 of 1984, which was filed for a declaration of controlling interest of shares and restoration of possession. The court also noted that the suits should have been tried together and that the petitioner had not filed a written statement in OS No. 8 of 1984.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the decree for specific performance and directed the High Court to try Suit No. 8 of 1984 and Suit No. 240 of 1990 together. The court also ordered the cancellation of the sale deed and directed the petitioner to file a written statement within four weeks.
Issues: Pendency of earlier suit, failure to try suits together, appointment of Receiver, failure to file written statement
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the decree for specific performance could not be sustained due to the pendency of an earlier suit and the failure to try the suits together. The court also emphasized the importance of impleading the petitioner as a party to the suit and the need for the petitioner to file a written statement.
Final Decision: The court set aside the decree for specific performance, directed the trial of both suits together, ordered the cancellation of the sale deed, and directed the petitioner to file a written statement within four weeks.
ORDER :
1. Special leave granted. After hearing counsel on both sides and perusing the material before us we are convinced that the decree for specific performance granted by the court in Suit No. 240 of 1990 cannot be sustained. We have come to this conclusion in view of pendency of the earlier suit i.e. Suit No. 8 of 1984 filed by Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick and his wife for a declaration that the transfer of controlling interest of shares in the petitioner company was not valid and prayed for a declaration that the said Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick has all the legal and equitable right, title and interest in respect of the said Dharanipur Tea Estate and for restoration of possession.
2. In fairness that suit and the present suit for specific performance ought to have been tried together. The suit for specific performance could not have been decreed by consent without determining the legal title to and factum of possession of the suit property. The title and possession could not have been decided without impleading the petitioner as a party to the suit. It is strange that a Receiver was appointed to take possession of the property with the help of the police.
3. We set aside the decree for specific performance made in Suit No. 240 of 1990 and request the High Court to try Suit No. 8 of 1984 and Suit No. 240 of 1990 together. We also set aside the order appointing the Receiver. The Receiver is directed to deliver back the possession of the property forthwith to the petitioner, New Red Bank Tea Company Pvt. Ltd.
4. We are told that the petitioner has not filed the written statement in OS No. 8 of 1984. It is directed that it must file the written statement within four weeks from the date of furnishing a copy of the plaint.
5. The High Court may dispose of the suits as expeditiously as possible. Liberty is reserved to the parties to move the High Court for any interim relief.
6. We are told that pursuant to the decree for specific performance, the sale deed has already been executed and registered. Needless to state that since we have set aside the decree for specific performance, automatically the sale deed stands cancelled.
7. No costs.
