Back
High Court Of Orissa
D. P. MOHAPATRA
SADHU BEHERA - Appellant
Versus
KRISHNA CHANDRA - Respondent
CIV. REVN. 17 Of 1983
Decided On : 10/22/1984
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - O. 1, R. 10 - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT - INTERVENTION BY STRANGER TO CONTRACT - NOT ENTITLED TO BE ADDED AS PARTY.
Fact of the Case:
In a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, the petitioners, who were strangers to the contract, sought to intervene, claiming that the contracted property was a joint family property of which they were co-owners. The petitioners argued that they should be impleaded as defendants in the suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners were not necessary or proper parties to the suit. The court reasoned that the subject matter of the suit was the enforceability of the contract between the plaintiffs and defendants, and the petitioners, as third parties to the contract, were not concerned with this issue. The court further held that the petitioners' presence was not necessary to adjudicate upon the questions involved in the suit, and that adding them as parties would enlarge the scope of the suit and turn it into a suit for title.
Issues: Whether a stranger to a contract for sale can intervene in a suit for specific performance of the contract and be added as a party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several precedents to support its decision. In Panne Khushali v. Jeewanlal Mathoo Khatik, the court held that a third party to a contract sought to be specifically enforced is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. In Rasiklal Shankerlal Soni v. Natverlal Shankerlal Upadhyaya, the court held that when the plaintiff is willing to take the title which his vendor had and no relief for possession of the suit property was claimed, the latter could not be allowed to be joined as parties to the suit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to be added as parties to the suit.
D. P. MOHAPATRA, J.
( 1 ) THE short question for decision in this case is whether in a suit for a specific performance of a contract for sale, instituted by a purchaser against the vendor, a stranger to the contract, who contending that the contracted property is a joint family property, of which he is also the co-owner, wants to intervene in the suit, is entitled to be added as a party. The question having been answered in the negative by the Court below, the interveners have filed this revision petition challenging the order. The facts material for the purpose of the present proceeding are that the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed Title Suit No. 64 of 1981 for a decree of specific performance of a contract for sale of the lands described in the schedule to the plaint. In the plaint they alleged inter alia that opposite parties 3 to 5 (defendants 1 to 3) constituted a joint family with the opposite party No. 3 (defendant No. 1) as Karta. In his capacity as Karta of the family the said defendant executed an agreement for sale of the case land in favour of the plaintiffs on 15-4-1978. They further alleged that the case land originally belonged to one Pyran Bibi who transferred the same in favour of opposite party No. 3 and his cousins, Sadhu, Radhu and Jadu, the petitioners in the revision petition, by a permanent lease deed dated 30-6-1944. Though the cousins of opposite party No. 3 were shown to be the joint purchasers yet none of them actually possessed the property. The plaintiff No. 1 who was originally inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of the case house contracted with defendant No. 1 for purchase of the same and continued to be in peaceful possession of the property on the basis of the agreement and delivery of possession. The said defendant No. 1 having failed to complete the sale, the suit for specific performance of a contract for sale was filed.
( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application for being impleaded as defendants in the suit alleging inter alia that on the plaintiffs' own showing they are the co-owners in respect of the suit property. A proceeding under the Orissa House Rent Control Act was instituted by them since the plaintiff defaulted in payment of rent and the petitioners require the case house for their own occupation. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff has managed to win over the defendant No. 1 and the two in collusion with each other are trying to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate rights in order to avoid multiplicity of proceeding the petitioners pleaded that they should be impleaded as defendants in the suit. As already stated the Court below rejected the application.
( 3 ) THE position is well settled that a person is a necessary party if in his absence, no effective decree can be passed. He is a proper party if his presence is necessary for effectual and complete adjudication. This is the principle embodied in O. 1, R. 10 (2), C. P. C. which runs as follows : -"court may strike out or add parties :- (2) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. "in the present case it is conceded that the interveners-petitioners are not necessary parties since it cannot be said that no effective decree can be passed in the suit in their absence. Therefore, the question that remains to be considered is whether they are proper parties. For this the test that is to be applied is whether the presence of the absentee parties shall be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually
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
