Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
Bagyalakshmi - Petitioners
Vs.
Kanagaraj – Respondent
CRP.No.4587 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013
Decided on : 03-01-2017
Specific Performance - Impleadment of Third Party - Order 1 Rule 10 - [SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE] - [Order 1 Rule 10] - The court dismissed the application for impleading a third party in a suit for specific performance, emphasizing that the validity of the sale agreement alone is to be decided and a party against whom no claim is made is not entitled to be impleaded. The court cited various judgments to support its decision, highlighting that a third party or a stranger to a contract cannot be added as a party to a suit for specific performance, and the scope of the suit cannot be enlarged to convert it into a suit for title and possession.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for specific performance by the plaintiff against the defendants. The plaintiff sought the execution and registration of a sale deed for a property, while the defendants denied the allegations and sought to implead a third party, the Ex-Branch Manager of a bank, in the suit proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impleadment of the third party was not necessary as the suit was solely for specific performance, and the presence of the third party would only enlarge the scope of the suit unnecessarily. The court emphasized that the validity of the sale agreement alone is to be decided and a party against whom no claim is made is not entitled to be impleaded.
Issues: The main issue was whether the third party, the Ex-Branch Manager of a bank, should be impleaded in the suit for specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in a suit for specific performance, the validity of the sale agreement alone is to be decided, and a party against whom no claim is made is not entitled to be impleaded. The court cited various judgments to support its decision, emphasizing that a third party or a stranger to a contract cannot be added as a party to a suit for specific performance, and the scope of the suit cannot be enlarged to convert it into a suit for title and possession.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the civil revision petition, confirming the order passed in the suit and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within three months without giving any adjournment to either party.
The defendants are the revision petitioners before this Court, challenging the order passed in I.A.No.381 of 2013 in O.S.No.760 of 2009 dated 03.10.2013.
2. Originally, the suit has been filed by the first respondent/plaintiff against this petitioners/defendants for specific performance. On receiving of summons, this petitioners/ defendants have filed their written statement by denying the above allegations.
3. While pendency of the above suit, this petitioners/defendants has filed an application in I.A.No.381 of 2013 for impleading one Mr.Ravikumar, the Ex. Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore, who is presently working as Manager, REPCO Bank, Upplipalayam, Coimbatore, as fifth defendant in the suit.
4. In the petition filed in I.A.No.381 of 2013, this petitioners/defendants stated that the husband of first petitioner /first defendant Late.D.Shanmugam approached the Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Sokkampalayam Branch, Coimbatore to raise the loan and the bank was also sanctioned a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and thereafter the deceased D.Shanmugam was carrying on his business with the help of loan raised by bank during his life time.
5. The petitioners also states that during the life time of deceased D.Shanmugam, he was making the payment towards the interest and died leaving the petitioners/defendants as his legal heirs to succeed the assets and liability left by him. The petitioners also stated that the respondent/plaintiff is the brother of the first defendant, with the active aid and assistance of one Mr.Ravikumar, Ex. Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, this respondent/plaintiff had received all the original title deeds of Late.D.Shanmugam and handed over to Syndicate Bank.
6. After the death of the deceased D.Shanmugam, the petitioners/defendants were approached the new Branch Manager, who is working now in the bank and requesting him to return the aforesaid documents to the petitioners in view of the settlements made by the petitioners and discharged the entire debt made by them. But, the New Branch Manager informed to the petitioners/defendants that the respondent/plaintiff was already received all the said documents, this petitioners/defendants stated that it is none of the business of either the present Manager or anybody to handover the documents without the knowledge of the petitioners and legal heirs of the deceased D.Shanmugam. Therefore, it has became necessity of the petitioners to file this petition seeking indulgence of the trial Court and seek an order to implead Mr.Ravikumar, the Ex. Branch Manager, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore as necessary parties in the suit proceedings.
7. Denying the averments made by the petitioners/defendants in I.A.No.381 of 2013, this respondent/plaintiff has filed his counter. In the counter, the respondent/plaintiff states that for impleading a third party, the application filed by the petitioners/defendants ought not to be entertained at all, since it is an abuse of process of Court and the law. Though the suit has been filed only for specific performance and necessary parties in the suit are buyer and seller. There is no conveyance to any third party except the buyer and seller.
8. Apart from that, the respondent also states that no other parties can be introduced in a suit for specific performance, only a necessary and proper party can be impleaded.
9. The respondent also states that the Bank or the Manager are not necessary and proper parties in the present suit. The allegations set out in the affidavit, the apprehension is that the settlement has been reached between the bank and this respondent/plaintiff. The respondent further states that the bank is not a necessary party at all. The question of handing over of documents is not a relevance for the suit at all, it is absolutely no connection whatsoever.
10. The respondent also states that no party can be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff and the plaintiff must have some cause of action or relief agains
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
