1965 Supreme(Mad) 153

Madras High Court
RAMAMURTI
G.M.V.Krishnamachari - Appellant
Versus
M.D.Dhanalakshmi Ammal - Respondent
Decided On : 04/16/1965

A person who has a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit, even if it is an equitable interest, is entitled to be impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) - IMPLEADING A PERSON AS A PROPER PARTY - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - INTEREST IN SUBJECT MATTER OF SUIT - DIRECT INTEREST - EXECUTORY AGREEMENT OF SALE - WHETHER CREATES AN INTEREST IN IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY - RIGHT TO CHARGE UNDER SECTION 55(6)(B) OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUND TO ENTITLE IMPLEADING AS A PARTY - INTERPRETATION OF 'ALL THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN THE SUIT' - WHETHER INCLUDES QUESTIONS BETWEEN PARTIES AND THIRD PARTIES.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner sought to be impleaded as a supplemental defendant in a partition suit, claiming that he had entered into a written agreement of sale with the first defendant for a house involved in the suit, and had paid a sum of Rs. 9,000 towards the purchase price. The plaintiffs, who were claiming the property as joint family property, opposed the application, contending that the agreement of sale did not clothe the petitioner with any legal or equitable right and that his remedy was to file a suit for specific performance. The trial court dismissed the application, taking the view that the agreement of sale did not create any interest in immoveable property and that the petitioner's remedy was to file a suit for specific performance.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court allowed the revision petition and directed that the petitioner be impleaded as a supplemental defendant, holding that: 1. Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. confers a wide jurisdiction on the court to implead a person as a proper party whose presence is necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. 2. The expression 'all the questions involved in the suit' includes not only questions between the parties to the litigation but also any dispute between the parties to the suit and a third party, and the object of the provision is to avoid multiplicity of suits and possible conflict of decisions. 3. An executory agreement of sale, though it does not create an interest in immoveable property, gives the purchaser an equitable interest which the law recognizes and upholds. 4. The petitioner had a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit, as the allotment made in the partition suit would be binding upon him, and he was entitled to be heard on the issue of whether the property was joint family property or the separate property of the first defendant. 5. The petitioner's right to a charge under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act for the prepaid purchase price constituted a sufficient ground and interest to entitle him to be impleaded as a party.

Issues: 1. Whether an executory agreement of sale creates an interest in immoveable property? 2. Whether the petitioner had a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit? 3. Whether the petitioner's right to a charge under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act constituted a sufficient ground to entitle him to be impleaded as a party?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. An executory agreement of sale, though it does not create an interest in immoveable property, gives the purchaser an equitable interest which the law recognizes and upholds. 2. A person who has a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit, even if it is an equitable interest, is entitled to be impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. 3. A right to a charge under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act for the prepaid purchase price constitutes a sufficient ground and interest to entitle the person to be impleaded as a party.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition and directed that the petitioner be impleaded as a supplemental defendant.