Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
Y. Dorababu Naidu – Petitioner
Versus
DPMR Developers, Tirupati – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.3061 of 2023
Decided On : 16-02-2024
(A) Specific Relief Act - Order I Rule 10 - Suit for specific performance - The court examined whether a third party can be added as a defendant in a suit for specific performance. It was held that a third party with a semblance of title or interest may be added to ensure complete adjudication of the matter. (Paras 8-12)
(B) Legal Principles - The court distinguished previous judgments, emphasizing that a third party can be impleaded if they show a legitimate claim over the property, preventing multiplicity of proceedings. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought specific performance of a sale agreement for land, while the 1st respondent claimed a conflicting agreement for a larger parcel of land, asserting rights over the property.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's decision to allow the 1st respondent's application to be added as a defendant was upheld, as their presence was necessary for a complete resolution of the issues.
Issues: The main issue was whether a third party with a claim over the property could be added as a defendant in a specific performance suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a third party with a legitimate claim must be included to avoid complicating the litigation and ensure all relevant parties are present.
Result: Civil revision petition dismissed.
ORDER :
(R. Raghunandan Rao, J.)
The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.1 of 2023 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, against the 2nd respondent for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 30.04.2016 for purchasing Ac.8.64 cents of land situated in Thimmasamudram Village for a consideration of Rs.43,20,000/-.
2. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st respondent moved I.A.No.486 of 2023 to implead himself under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The case of the 1st respondent was that the 2nd respondent had entered into an agreement of sale with the 1st respondent on 18.10.2022 in respect of Ac.43.14 cents of land in Timmasamudram Village for a consideration of Rs.6,90,24,000/- and received Rs.4,90,00,000/- as advance. The 1st respondent contended that the Ac.8.64 cents, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.1 of 2023 is part of Ac.43.14 cents of land which is to be transferred in favour of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent further contended that the alleged agreement of sale dated 30.04.2016 is a fabrication prepared by the petitioner for the purpose of obtaining illegal benefit to himself and the same cannot be accepted as the petitioner has neither the capacity nor the ability to pay Rs.35,00,000/- claimed in the suit and that the consideration 43,20,000/- for Ac.8.64 cents is below the market rate and no prudent man would sell the land at such a rate.
3. The petitioner herein opposed the said application contending that respondents 1 and 2 had colluded with each other and had fabricated the agreement of sale dated 18.10.2022 as a defence to the case of the petitioner against the 2nd respondent.
4. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, had allowed the application by an order dated 09.10.2023 whereby the 1st respondent was to be added as 2nd defendant in the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.
5. Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgments in Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and Ors., 2005(6) SCC 733 and Taddi Chinnayya and Ors., vs. Tekumalla Purushottam Rao and Ors., 2015(4) ALD 501 to contend that an agreement of sale holder cannot seek to implead himself into the suit filed by a third party for specific performance of the agreement of sale held by the third party.
6. Sri M.L.Ali, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contends that the 1st respondent has sufficient interest in the land and no decree can be passed without the presence of the 1st respondent due to which the order of the trial Court permitting the 1st respondent to implead itself as a defendant cannot be faulted. He relies upon the judgments of this Court reported in Taddi Chinnayya and Ors., vs. Tekumalla Purushottam Rao and Ors., (2 supra) and the judgment of the High Court of Telangana repotted in B.A.S.Devi Prasad vs. Telangana Cooperative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar and Ors., 2020(5) ALD212 (TS). Learned counsel would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia vs. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (deceased) thr. LRs. And Ors., 2018(2) ALD 82 (SC) and Sumtibai and Ors., vs. Paras Finance Co., and Ors., 2007(10) SCC 82.
7. The case of the 1st respondent is that the 1st respondent has an agreement of sale dated 18.10.2022 under which the 1st respondent has a right and claim over the property and no order can be passed without hearing the 1st respondent.
8. The judgments cited by Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, have been set out above. In Kasturi vs. lyyamperumal and Ors., 2005(6) SCC 733, and Sumtibai and Ors., vs. Paras Finance Co., and Ors. the Hon'ble Supreme Court framed the question before it in the following manner.
2. The only question that needs to be decided in this case is whether in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of a property instituted by a purchaser against the vendor, a stranger or a third party to the contract, claiming to
AI
A third party with a legitimate claim over property can be added as a defendant in a specific performance suit to ensure complete adjudication.
The decision to allow subsequent purchasers as parties in specific performance suits is justified when they demonstrate a semblance of title or interest to the property, supporting effective judicial....
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.
The court affirmed the principle that parties with substantial interest must be joined for effective adjudication in specific performance suits, emphasizing judicial discretion under Order 1 Rule 10.
A third party seeking impleadment must demonstrate a direct legal interest in the case, and the court retains discretion to allow or deny such applications based on the specifics of the case.
A third party cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance if their presence is not necessary to resolve the original contract dispute, as it alters the nature of the suit.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impleadment of a party is not necessary if no legal right has been created in their favor, and their presence is not required to effective....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to determine whether a party is necessary for effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit, and the ....
The court ruled that third parties may be necessary in specific performance suits to avoid multiplicity of litigation, allowing their impleadment and amendment of the suit.
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
