Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1508
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
SHITIJE JAIN - Petitioner
Versus
BALBIR SINGH & ANR. - Respondents
CM(M) No.547 of 2017
Decided On : 17-05-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vikrant Bhardwaj, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that impleadment in a legal proceeding requires the party to have a direct and legal interest in the subject matter, and their presence must be necessary for a complete and final decision on the questions involved in the proceeding.
Headnote:
Impleadment - Landlord-Tenant Dispute - Order XII Rule 6 CPC, Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Order I Rule 10 CPC - Unregistered Documents - Necessary Party - Impleadment Criteria
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought impleadment in a landlord-tenant dispute after the suit was decreed in favor of the landlord. The petitioner claimed co-ownership based on unregistered documents, which was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioner's claim was based on an unregistered Will, which was also rejected by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim based on unregistered documents did not establish legal rights in the property. The court held that the petitioner was not a necessary party in the landlord-tenant dispute and that the presence of the petitioner was not required to decide the controversy involved in the suit.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's claim of co-ownership based on unregistered documents and the criteria for impleadment in a landlord-tenant dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the criteria for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC, emphasizing that a necessary party is one without whom no effective decree can be made. The court also highlighted the importance of legal interest and the direct impact on the intervener's legal rights in determining impleadment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application for impleadment, upholding the trial court's decision and finding that the petitioner was not a necessary party in the landlord-tenant dispute.
CM No.18638/2017
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 547/2017
1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by assailing the order dated 31st March, 2017 whereby the application filed by him for his impleadment in RCA No.61245/2016 titled as Balbir Singh Vs. Padam Chand Jain has been dismissed.
2. Perusal of the record reveals that Civil Suit No. 55/2014 was filed by Sh.Padam Chand Jain seeking a decree of possession against the tenant Sh.Balbir Singh claiming himself to be the landlord and joint owner of the suit property bearing no.E-2/4, Main Bazar Road, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052 along with Ms. Seema Jain. As per the averments made by the plaintiff, Sh.Padam Chand Jain the defendant/tenant Sh.Balbir Singh was inducted as a tenant in respect of a hall (shown in red colour in the site plan) on the ground floor of the suit property vide rent deed dated 1st June, 2000. The rate of rent was Rs.10,000/- per month. The tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 19th May, 2006 and thereafter, the suit for possession was filed.
3. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 2nd June, 2015 which was passed by the Court in terms of the Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The said judgement and decree was challenged by the defendant/tenant by filing RCA No. 61245/2016. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff Sh.Padam Chand Jain transferred his 50% share in the suit property in favour of his daughter Ms. Sunita Jain by virtue of gift deed dated 5th July, 2013.
4. On an application being filed under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, vide order dated 22nd May, 2015, Sunita Jain was substituted as plaintiff.
5. The petitioner/applicant filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC claiming himself to be the co-owner of the suit property and having half share therein thereby seeking his impleadment in the appeal as a necessary party.
6. The learned trial Court after discussing the legal position on the subject of impleadment under order I Rule 10(2) CPC, dismissed the application for the following reasons:-
(i) The applicant was claiming his title on the basis of an unregistered document and genuineness of the same was also questioned.
(ii) The applicant cannot claim himself to be the co-owner on the basis of an unregistered documents, hence could not establish his title in legal proceedings.
(iii) In the Civil Suit the litigation was between co-landlord and a defaulting tenant. The co-landlord transferred his share in favour of Ms. Sunita Jain by virtue of gift deed dated 5th July, 2013 and she was substituted as plaintiff. In a landlord-tenant dispute title of the third party is not required to be determined. Presence of the applicant is not necessary to decide the controversy involved in the suit.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Sh.Padam Chand Jain sold his 50% share to his son, Vijay Kumar Jain. The said 50% share was further sold by Sh.Vijay Kumar Jain to Sh.Vinod Jain vide sale document dated 12th May, 2004. Sh.Vinod Kumar Jain has expired leaving behind an unregistered Will dated 23rd November, 2015 in favour of the applicant Sh.Shitije Jain on the basis of which Sh.Shitije Jain has become co-owner hence necessary party in the appeal.
8. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are legally not tenable. The petitioner cannot claim any legal right in respect of the suit property on the basis of an unregistered Will in favour of Sh.Vinod Jain for the reason that the alleged sale transaction by Sh.Padam Chand Jain in favour of Sh.Vijay Kumar Jain, and thereafter by Sh.Vijay Kumar Jain in favour of Sh.Vinod Jain, vide unregistered documents. It is settled position that no title in the immovable property can be conferred on the basis of unregistered and insufficiently stamped documents.
9. In the landlord/tenant litigation, the judgment and decree has been passed by the learned trial C
