Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4818
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
B.S. Walia, J.
Ravi Kumar - Appellants
Versus
Jaswant Singh And Another - Respondent
CR No. 8900 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 04-12-2018
Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate for the Appellants; Mr. Sharad Mehra, Advocate for Respondents
Impleadment of necessary parties and amendment of pleadings in a suit for specific performance.
Headnote:
Revision petition - Impleadment of party and amendment of pleadings - Order 1, Rule 10, Order 6, Rule 17 CPC - 1954 AIR (SC) 75, 1979 AIR (Patna) 88, 1991 AIR (Madras) 209
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell. The respondents filed a written statement claiming that the property had been transferred to a third party. The petitioners sought to implead the third party and amend the pleadings to reflect the illegal transfer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the subsequent purchaser was a necessary and proper party in the suit for specific performance. It held that the proper form of decree would be to direct specific performance of the contract between the vendor and the prior purchaser and direct the subsequent transferee to join in the conveyance to pass on the title to the prior purchaser.
Issues: The main issue was the impleadment of the subsequent purchaser as a necessary party and the amendment of pleadings to reflect the illegal transfer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents to establish that the subsequent purchaser is a necessary party in a suit for specific performance and that the proper form of decree would involve the subsequent transferee joining in the conveyance to pass on the title to the prior purchaser.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned orders, and ordered the impleadment of the subsequent purchaser as a defendant and the amendments to the pleadings.
JUDGMENT
B.S. Walia, J. - Revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure P-1) dismissing the application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151 CPC as also order dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure P-2) dismissing application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant revision petition are that the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.09.2008 relating to the property fully detailed in the heading of the plaint. Written statement was filed by the respondents/defendants on 17.09.2012 taking up the plea that the property in question had already been transferred by Santosh Kaur (respondent/defendant No.2) qua her share vide Tabdeel Malkiat/transfer deed dated 21.06.2011, that perusal of the transfer deed revealed that the transfer had been made in favour of Pawandeep Singh son of Amarjit Singh (to the extent of half share) and Santosh Kaur (respondent/defendant No.2) and that the said Tabdeel Malkiat/transfer deed had been executed without payment of any stamp fee and without any consideration in connivance with Jaswant Singh (respondent/defendant No.1) to wriggle out of agreement dated 15.09.2008 so as to jeopardise the rights of the petitioners/plaintiffs created under the said agreement. In the aforementioned background, it was pleaded that the Tabdeel Malkiat/transfer deed was not binding or operative qua the rights of the petitioners/plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that Pawandeep Singh son of Amarjit Singh and Santosh Kaur (respondent/defendant No.2) was fully aware about the agreement to sell dated 15.09.2008 entered into between the parties and despite complete knowledge of the same, he had intentionally purchased the property in question. It was pleaded that the aforementioned facts had come to the notice of the counsel while preparing arguments in the case and that in the circumstances, the petitioners/plaintiffs wanted to implead said Pawandeep Singh as a party to the suit as defendant No.3 as he was a necessary and proper party in the case and in his absence, the matter in controversy could not be effectively and completely decided. It was further pleaded that earlier the case was being conducted by some other counsel and it was only when the case was being prepared for arguments by the new counsel that the aforementioned aspect of the matter came to notice.
3. In the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC, the amendment of the plaint was sought as per details given as under:-
(a) At the end of the heading of the plaint, the following relief or declaration was sought to be added by way of amendment:-
"and declaration to the effect that the alleged Tabdeel Malkit/transfer deed dated 21.06.2011 registered vide document No.4218, bhai No.1, vol No.4451 at page No.35 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of Pawandeep Singh son of S. Amarjit Singh resident of House No.844/5, Sardar Avenue, Majitha Road, Amritsar, qua her share is illegal, null and void, without consideration and is not effective and binding qua the rights of the plaintiffs and is liable to be set aside."
(b) Whereas after para No.8 of the plaint, para No.8-A was sought to be added by way of amendment. The same is as under:-
"8-A. While preparing arguments in this case, it has transpired from the perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant that the property in question has already been transferred by Santosh Kaur, defendant No.2 qua her share vide Tabdeel Malkit/transfer deed dated 23.06.2011 registered vide document No.4218, bahi No.1, vol No.4451 at page No.35 and perusal of the transfer deed transpires that the same has been transferred in favour of Pawandeep Singh son of S. Amarjit Singh resident of House No.844/5, Sardar Avenue, Majitha Road, Amritsar to the extent of / share and said Pawandeep
