Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 97
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, TALWANT SINGH, JJ.
Jaswin Arora - Appellant
Versus
Harmeet Singh Sood & Others - Respondents
FAO (OS). No. 157 of 2018
Decided On : 04-02-2020
For the Appellant :Kunal Tandon, Niti Jain, Girdhar Singh, Amandeep Singh, Advocates
For the Respondents:Rajshekhar Rao, Ravi Kapoor, Karthik Sundar, Rishav Ambastha, Umang Kapoor, Arti Bansal, Advocates
The impleadment of third-party purchasers as co-Defendants in a suit for specific performance may be necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to ensure effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Property Dispute - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 19 - Summary of Acts and Sections: SPA, Section 19 - The court examined the application of Section 19 of the SPA and the principles governing the disposal of an application for impleadment as co-defendants in a suit for specific performance. The court referred to the decisions in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, Vidhur Impex and Traders Private Limited v. Tosh Apartments Private Limited, and Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited to determine the legal principles applicable to the case. The court concluded that the impleadment of third-party purchasers as co-defendants in the suit for specific performance was necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to ensure effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff sought specific performance of an Agreement to Sell/Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’) for a property. The Defendants, including third-party purchasers, claimed rights to overlapping portions of the property. The Plaintiff filed a suit and an application for interim injunction. The Defendants, who were in possession of the property, filed an application for impleadment as co-Defendants in the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that impleading the third-party purchasers as co-Defendants in the suit for specific performance was necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to ensure effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. The court also noted that the undertaking by the third-party purchasers to maintain the status quo with respect to title and possession provided sufficient protection to the Plaintiff.
Issues: The main issue was whether impleading the third-party purchasers as co-Defendants in the suit for specific performance would be considered a legal error warranting interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles derived from the decisions in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, Vidhur Impex and Traders Private Limited v. Tosh Apartments Private Limited, and Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited to determine that the impleadment of third-party purchasers as co-Defendants in the suit for specific performance was necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to ensure effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld, as the impleadment of third-party purchasers as co-Defendants in the suit for specific performance was found to be necessary. The court also noted that the undertaking by the third-party purchasers to maintain the status quo with respect to title and possession provided sufficient protection to the Plaintiff.
JUDGMENT :
S. Muralidhar, J.
1. This appeal is directed against two impugned interim orders of the learned Single Judge dated 13th September, 2018 in OA No.8 of 2018 in CS (OS) 3056 of 2014 and I.A. No.19555 of 2014 in the same suit.
2. The Appellant is the Plaintiff in the aforesaid suit. He is seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell/Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’) dated 19th May, 2012 and 22nd May, 2012 in respect of the basement (front and rear portion), ground floor and terrace along with the proportionate rights of the property at No. D-16, Greater Kailash Enclave-I, New Delhi (hereafter, “the property in question”) entered into between him and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit who have been impleaded in the present appeal as Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. On 30th April 2014, the original owner of the property in question Mr. Joginder Kapoor (impleaded as Respondent No.4 herein) entered into an Agreement to Sell (ATS) in respect of some portions of the suit property with Defendant/ Respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the above ATS/MoU was entered into by the Plaintiff with Defendant Nos.1 and 2 as attorney of Defendant No.3.
4. The case of the Plaintiff is that since entering into the above MoU/ATS, Defendant No.4 Mr. Joginder Kapoor had unauthorizedly trespassed to the rear half ground floor portion of the property in question. Defendant No.1 had applied for getting the leasehold property converted into freehold with the office of the Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’), i.e. Defendant No.5 in the suit (Respondent No.5 herein).
5. The Plaintiff/Appellant filed CS (OS) 3056/2014 on 23rd September, 2014 seeking the above reliefs. Along with the suit he filed IA No.19555 of 2014 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) for interim injunction. Notice on this application was issued to the Respondents/Defendants on 9th October, 2014.
6. An interim order was passed on 9th October, 2014 by the learned Single Judge, restraining the Defendants/Respondents from selling, alienating, transferring or parting with possession or creating any third-party rights and interests in the property in question.
7. On 5th May, 2016 Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 herein (Ms. Janki Devi and Ms. Sapna Yadav respectively) filed an application being I.A. No.6500 of 2016 under Order I Rule 10 CPC in which they claimed to have purchased the rear portion of the ground floor and rear portion of the lower ground floor of the property in question from Respondent Nos.2 and 4 respectively, who had in turn allegedly purchased the rear ground floor portion from Respondent No.1 (Mr. Harmeet Singh Sood). Respondent Nos.6 and 7 also claimed to be in possession of the property in question.
8. The case of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 was that they were not aware of the interim order passed by the Court on 9th October, 2014 and that in the meanwhile, on 20th October, 2014 two separate sale deeds were registered in favour of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in respect of the rear portion of the ground floor and rear portion of the lower ground floor respectively of the property in question. They accordingly claimed that they were bona fide third-party purchasers without the knowledge of the pendency of the suit or the stay order. They explained that on 23rd November, 2015, the learned Single Judge permitted the Plaintiff to affix a signboard on the property in question, mentioning the fact of the pendency of the litigation. Pursuant thereto, the signboard was fixed. According to Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, it is only then that they became aware of the pendency of the suit.
9. In their application it was mentioned that Defendant No. 4 Mr. Joginder Kapoor had already filed his written statement dated 23rd May, 2015 in the suit wherein a preliminary objection was taken about his having already sold the rear portions of the ground and lower ground floor to Respondent Nos.6 and 7 by a title document dated 25th September, 2014 and pos
