Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan - Appellant
Versus
Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) Thr. Lrs. And Others - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 5755-5756 of 2011
Decided on : 27-09-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order I Rule 10 – Impleadment of necessary party – Suit for Specific Performance – 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 court – For being a necessary party, twin test has to be satisfied – First one is that there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of controversies involved in proceedings – Second one is that no effective decree can be passed in absence of such a party – Since suit property was jointly owned by defendant along with his wife and three sons, effective decree could not have been passed affecting rights of defendant’s wife and three sons without impleading them – Even in spite of defendant taking objection in that regard, plaintiff has chosen not to implead defendant’s wife and three sons as party defendants – High Court, in order to balance equities, has partly decreed suit and directed defendant to refund amount of Rs.30,000/- with 9% interest – Direction of High Court affirmed and appeal dismissed. (Paras 18 to 24)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals challenge the judgment dated 3rd July 2008 passed by Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Second Appeal No. 264 of 1996, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondents challenging the judgment dated 13th June 1996 passed Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1990 vide which the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment dated 28th March 1990 passed by trial court in Special Civil Suit No. 21 of 1985 filed by appellant vide which trial court had decreed the suit for specific performance filed by the present appellant.
Findings of Court:
No error can be noticed in the judgment of the High Court. The appeals are therefore liable to be dismissed.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
A "necessary party" is defined as a person who ought to be joined as a party to the suit, and in whose absence, no effective decree can be passed by the court (!) .
For a person to be considered a necessary party, two conditions must be satisfied: (a) there must be a right to some relief against such party concerning the issues involved, and (b) no effective decree can be issued in the absence of that party (!) .
In cases involving joint ownership of property, all co-owners or co-parceners must typically be joined as parties to ensure that any decree passed is effective and binding on all interested parties (!) .
The plaintiff admitted that the property in question was jointly owned by the defendant, his wife, and three sons, which implies that an effective decree could not be passed without including all these parties (!) (!) .
Non-joinder of necessary parties in such joint ownership scenarios can lead to the suit being liable for dismissal, as no final or binding decree can be issued without their presence (!) .
The court emphasizes that the twin criteria for determining necessity of a party are: the right to relief against the party and the inability to pass an effective decree without their inclusion (!) .
The court upheld that, in this case, the failure to join the wife and sons as parties was a significant procedural defect, and the absence of these parties rendered any decree ineffective (!) .
The court also noted that the plaintiff chose not to implead the necessary parties despite objections and objections raised by the defendant, which further impacted the maintainability of the suit (!) .
The court affirmed the decision to dismiss the appeal, maintaining that the directions for refunding the amount with interest by the defendant were appropriate to balance the equities (!) .
Overall, the legal principles reinforce that proper joinder of all necessary parties is fundamental to the effectiveness and enforceability of a court’s decree, especially in joint ownership and transaction cases (!) .
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. These appeals challenge the judgment dated 3rd July 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Second Appeal No. 264 of 1996, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondents challenging the judgment dated 13th June 1996 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Yavatmal (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellate Court”) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1990 vide which the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment dated 28th March 1990 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yavatmal (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”) in Special Civil Suit No. 21 of 1985 filed by the appellant vide which the trial court had decreed the suit for specific performance filed by the present appellant.
2. The parties hereto are referred to in accordance with their status as before the trial court.
3. The plaintiff is a doctor who was working in a Government Hospital. The plaintiff was also in private practice. The plaintiff, for starting his private practice, took on rent a part of the house of the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that subsequently, the defendant was in financial need for his agricultural cultivation and household expenses and therefore, he suggested to the plaintiff that he should purchase the said part of the house which the plaintiff was occupying, together with an added portion. The plaintiff accepted the said suggestion and an agreement to sell was entered into on 24th July 1984. As per the terms of the said agreement to sell, the defendant agreed to sell and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property for Rs.50,000/-. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.24,000/- on the date of the agreement and the defendant executed an earnest note in favour of the plaintiff. As per the terms of the agreement to sell, the sale deed was to be executed before 31st March 1985. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 31st July 1984, the defendant again requested for money and on such request, the plaintiff paid him an amount of Rs.6,000/-. It is also the case of the plaintiff that pursuant to the aforesaid payment, he was put in possession of the suit property on 31st July 1984.
4. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and therefore, he informed the defendant by registered letter that he was willing to complete his part of the transaction before 31st March 1985. However, the defendant replied to the said notice by alleging that the transaction was of money lending and denied the execution of the sale deed. In this background, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance before the trial court. The trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 28th March 1990, decreed the suit and directed the defendant to execute the sale deed by accepting the balance sale consideration as per the terms of the agreement to sell. It further directed that if the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, the same should be executed through the court. Being aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 13th June 1996.
5. The defendant thereafter preferred a second appeal before the High Court which came to be partly allowed vide the impugned judgment. Though the High Court denied the specific performance, it directed the defendant to refund the amount of Rs.30,000/- along with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till its realization. Hence, the present appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff.
6. We have heard Shri Rahul Chitnis, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Harin P. Raval, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
7. Shri Chitnis submitted that a perusal of the agreement to sell would reveal that the defendant had agreed to sell the property since he needed money for farming and household expenses. He subm
Suit for Specific Performance – 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 court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for specific performance can be filed only against the persons who have entered into a sale agreement, and the necessity of parties in ....
The prior purchasers of the property are necessary and proper parties to a suit for specific performance.
The Karta of a Hindu joint family can alienate joint family property for legal necessity or benefit of the estate, and such alienation is binding on minor coparceners if proven necessary.
The Court found that the sale agreement was valid, the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform, and the subsequent sale deed was not binding on the plaintiff.
Court cannot allow adjudication of collateral matters so as to convert a suit for specific performance of contract for sale into a complicated suit for title between the plaintiff/appellant.
Misjoinder of parties does not invalidate a suit against a necessary party; courts have discretion in granting specific performance based on established agreements.
Agreement of sale post-partition binds only signatories' shares; lacks Karta recital or legal necessity, does not bind non-signatory coparceners' independent shares.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
