An applicant seeking impleadment must demonstrate a direct legal interest and right to relief concerning the controversy in a suit; absence of such a link renders the request for impleadment invalid.

JUDGMENT :

MINI PUSHKARNA, J.

I.A. 11225/2024

1. The present application has been filed under Order I Rule 1, 8(A), 10 and 10(A) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) on behalf of Mr. Atul Malik, Mrs. Geetika Malik, Mr. Satender Malik and Mrs. Anuroop Malik, praying for their impleadment in the present suit.

2. The applicants have prayed for their impleadment in the present suit on the ground that the plaintiffs entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 06^th October, 2017 with the applicants with respect to the property, i.e., agricultural farm land, admeasuring 2.5 acres, bearing Khasra Nos. 744, 745, 747 and 748 known as Farm No. 26, Shivji Marg, Westend Greens, Village Rangpuri, New Delhi (“suit property”), pursuant to which, the possession of the suit property has been handed over to the applicants vide Possession Letter dated 24^th March, 2018. Thus, as per the applicants they are proper and necessary parties in the present suit, since any decision in the present suit will have impact on the right and title of the applicants in the suit property.

3. The present application has been vehemently opposed by the plaintiffs as well as the defendant on the ground that the plaintiffs have not claimed any relief against the applicants in the present suit, and the applicants have no privity of contract in the purported Agreements to Sell executed by the defendant’s mother in favour of the plaintiffs. Further, impleadment of the applicants shall enlarge the scope of the suit, as the Court would have to adjudicate two independent causes of actions, one between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and the other between the plaintiffs and the applicants.

4. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record, at the outset, this Court notes that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking decree of declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit property.

5. As per the plaint, the plaintiffs were good friends with the parents of the defendant. The defendant’s mother, late Mrs. Veena Mehra, was the owner of the suit property, and she executed three Agreements to Sell dated 12^th December, 1990, 20^th December, 1990 and 01^st November, 1991, in favour of the plaintiffs. Payment of the entire sale consideration was made by the plaintiffs to late Mrs. Veena Mehra, mother of the defendant. Further, possession of the suit property was also handed over to the plaintiffs.

6. The plaintiffs assert that they have been in an uninterrupted exclusive physical possession of the suit property. However, the Sale Deed was still to be executed by late Mrs. Veena Mehra in favour of the plaintiffs. Unfortunately, late Mrs. Veena Mehra, along with her husband and youngest of the three daughters died in an unfortunate helicopter accident on 02^nd January, 2000. On their deaths, they were survived by two other daughters, namely, the defendant herein and her elder sister Ms. Amita Mehra.

7. Subsequently, the suit property came to the share of the defendant, after the division of the estate of the parents of the defendant with her elder sister. The plaintiffs requested the defendant on various occasions to execute registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiffs. However, upon the defendant’s outright refusal to execute the Sale Deed, by claiming ownership of the suit property, the present suit came to be filed.

8. As per the plaint, the plaintiffs have lost their files with all their sets of documents relating to the transaction of sale in their favour, with respect to the suit property.

9. The present suit is being resisted by the defendant on the groun