Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 1876
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J.
Hakikat Raj Bajaj – Appellant
Versus
Rohit Bajaj – Respondent
CS(OS) 335 of 2018 and I.A. Nos. 9070 of 2018, 12990 of 2022, 12991 of 2022
Decided On : 01-02-2023
Mr. Mahesh K. Chaudhary and Ms. Sushmita Chaudhary, Advocates, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Gaurav Tyagi and Mr. Honey Chhibber, Advocates, for the Defendant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person seeking to be added as a party to a suit should have a direct interest in the subject-matter of the litigation, and the addition of parties is a question of judicial discretion.
Headnote:
Impleadment - Partition Suit - Indemnity Bond, Will, and Impleadment Application - [PARTITION SUIT] - [Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure] - The court discussed the scope and ambit of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that a person seeking to be added as a party to a suit should have a direct interest in the subject-matter of the litigation. The court also emphasized that the addition of parties is a question of judicial discretion and that a person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer, i.e., the litigation may lead to a result affecting the person legally by curtailing their legal rights. The court found that the applicant had no rights in the suit property and that his impleadment was not necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Therefore, the impleadment application was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a decree of partition for an industrial property. The defendant, the son of the late Gurbaksh Rai Bajaj, claimed ownership of a share of the property based on an indemnity bond executed by his father. The plaintiff contested the claim based on a Will executed by Gurbaksh Rai Bajaj, bequeathing his share of the property to the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant had no rights in the suit property and that his impleadment was not necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Therefore, the impleadment application was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant had a direct interest in the subject-matter of the litigation and whether his impleadment was necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a person seeking to be added as a party to a suit should have a direct interest in the subject-matter of the litigation and that the addition of parties is a question of judicial discretion. The court also highlighted that a person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer, i.e., the litigation may lead to a result affecting the person legally by curtailing their legal rights.
Final Decision: The impleadment application was dismissed as the court found that the applicant had no rights in the suit property and that his impleadment was not necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
JUDGMENT
Sachin Datta, J. (Oral)
I.A. No. 12990/2022 (for impleadment)
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of partition in respect of industrial property bearing No. B-26, admeasuring 602 sq. yds., situated at Rewari Line Industrial Area (popularly known as Mayapuri Industrial Area), Maya Puri, Phase-1, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `suit property.).
2. The plaintiff is the son of late Gurbaksh Rai Bajaj and the defendant is the son of late Ramesh Kumar Bajaj, the grandson of late Gurbaksh Rai Bajaj. It is averred in the plaint that the suit property was initially allotted in the name of the plaintiff by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as `DDA.) vide perpetual lease deed dated 22.11.1971. The possession of the said property was also handed over to the plaintiff by the DDA. The construction over the said property was raised after getting the plan sanctioned from the competent authority. It is averred in the suit that the plaintiff executed a registered Gift Deed dated 18.10.1976 by virtue of which the plaintiff transferred 1/3rd share of the suit property in favour of his father Shri Gurbaksh Rai Bajaj and another 1/3rd share in favour of his brother Shri Ramesh Kumar Bajaj. The plaintiff remained the owner of the remaining 1/3rd share of the suit property. It is further averred that Shri Gurbaksh Rai Bajaj expired on 12.08.2001 and that during his lifetime Shri Gurbaksh Rai Bajaj had executed a Will dated 06.08.1994 which was registered on 25.08.1994 with the office of the Sub Registrar, Delhi. Vide the said Will, Shri Gurbaksh Rai Bajaj bequeathed his 1/3rd undivided share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff is stated to have become the owner of the 2/3rd share of the suit property whereas the remaining 1/3rd share of the property remained with Shri Ramesh Kumar Bajaj. Both the plaintiff and the defendant admit the Will dated 06.08.1994.
3. The present application has been filed by Sh. Kewal Krishan Bajaj, brother of the plaintiff, on the basis of the assertion that the father of the applicant, who admittedly had 1/3rd share in the suit property during his lifetime, transferred 1/4th share in the property (i.e., 3/4th of 1/3rd) in his favour. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on a registered indemnity bond dated 11.06.1986 in respect of transfer of the said 1/4th share.
4. It is averred in the application that the said transfer of 1/4th share in the name of the applicant was notified to the DDA and that certain correspondence was exchanged between the DDA and the applicant with regard thereto. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, it is contended that the applicant is a necessary party in the present suit and accordingly, he seeks his impleadment as a defendant for appropriate adjudication of the matter.
5. The indemnity bond executed by the father of the applicant on the basis of which the present application has been filed reads as under:
"This Bond is made on this 11th day of June 1986 by Gurbaksh Rai S/o Late Shri Balhari Lal R/o D/E-114, Tagore Garden, New Delhi-I I 0027, (hereinafter called the transferor) in favour of the President of India (hereinafter called the Lessor).
2. Whereas S/Shri Gurbaksh Rai, Ramesh Kumar and Hakikat Rai are the co-lessees in equal share i.e. 1/3rd each unspecified and hole lease hold rights in respect of Plot No. 26, Block 'B', situated at Rewari Line Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-27 measuring about 602 Sq. Yds., by virtue of Gift Deed dated 18.10.76 registered as No.2291, in Addl. Book No.I, Vol. No. 2679, on pages 21 to 26 on 19.10.76 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sub-Distt. No. II, Delhi, read with Lease Deed registered as No. 14033, in Addl. Book No. I, Volume No.1570, on pages I 64 to I 69 on 25.11.71 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sub-Distt. No.II, Delhi read with Supplemental Deed registered as No. 14035, in Addl. Book No. I, Volume No.1570,
