Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.
Smt. Neelam Yadav And Another – Appellant
Versus
Shree Devi And 2 Others – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 5295 of 2022
Decided on : 30-09-2022
Impleadment - Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Article 227 - [IMPLEADMENT] - [Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell] - [Order 1 Rule 10 CPC] - The court discussed the principles of impleadment and the necessity of a party to be impleaded in a suit. The court referred to the case of Gurmeet Singh Bhatia vs. Kiran Kant Robinson (2020) 13 SCC 773 and emphasized that a third party or a stranger to the contract cannot be added to convert the character of one suit into a different character. The court held that the plaintiffs cannot be forced to add a party against whom they do not want to seek any relief. The impleadment application filed by the petitioners was rightly dismissed as they were not necessary parties in the suit itself.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a property against the original owner. The petitioners, subsequent purchasers, sought to be impleaded in the suit as they had purchased the disputed land during the pendency of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not necessary parties to be impleaded in the suit as no relief was claimed against them by the plaintiffs. The impleadment application filed by the petitioners was rightly dismissed by the Courts below.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, as subsequent purchasers, were necessary parties to be impleaded in the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that a third party or a stranger to the contract cannot be added to convert the character of one suit into a different character. It emphasized that the plaintiffs cannot be forced to add a party against whom they do not want to seek any relief.
Final Decision: The petition being devoid of merits, was dismissed accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Dharmala Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and perused the record.
2. This Misc. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 7.4.2022 passed by Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Etawah rejecting the Application No.162-Ka for impleadment in Original Suit No. 234 of 2009 and order dated 30.5.2022 passed by the District Judge, Etawah in Civil Revision no. 16 of 2022 by which the civil revision filed by the petitioners was rejected.
3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs-respondents had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell with respect to suit property on 28.5.2009. The suit was registered as Original Suit No. 234 of 2009. It is pleaded in the plaint that the defendant Nawab Singh is owner in possession of 0.67 dismal land of Khata no. 127, Bhumidhari no. 80-Kha area 0.9102 hectare situated in Village Manikpur Vishu, District Etawah. The defendant was agree to sell 0.48 dismal land of his share of 0.67 dismal on consideration of Rs.27 lakhs and had received Rs.7 lakhs in advance and executed the agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff, which was registered on 7.10.2008. It was agreed between the parties that rest amount will be paid within seven months and defendant will execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. Inspite of notice, the defendant Nawab Singh was not ready to execute the sale deed and as such, the suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiffs.
4. During the pendency of suit, sole defendant Nawab Singh died and in his place, his wife and two sons were substituted as defendant Nos. 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3 and all the legal representatives were having 1/3rd share each in the said property. The defendant no. 1/3, son of Nawab Singh had executed a sale deed in favour of plaintiff no.1 on 11.12.2015 and defendant no.1/2 had executed sale deed on 3.10.2017 of his 1/3rd share of the property and the suit was remained pending for only 1/3rd share of the defendant No. 1/1 Smt. Parvati Devi who is wife of Nawab Singh.
5. The petitioners had purchased the share of defendant no. 1/1 Smt. Parvati Devi through registered sale deed on 27.4.2019 during the pendency of suit and they have filed an impleadment application. The impleadment application which is paper No. 162-Ka has been filed in the suit on the ground that the defendant no. 1/1 had sold her share to the applicants and now she is not interested to contest the suit and since they are bonafide purchasers of the share of defendant no. 1/1, they are necessary party to be impleaded as defendants in the suit.
6. The plaintiffs had filed detailed objection to the impleadment application stating therein that there was injunction order by the Court dated 14.3.2012 restraining the defendants from transferring the property in question. It is further stated in the objection that the sale deed which was executed in favour of applicants are without any prior permission of the Court. It is also pleaded that the applicants are belonging to the family of defendant Nawab Singh and they had full knowledge about the pendency of present suit and inspite of restrained order, the sale deed was executed by the defendant no. 1/1 on 27.4.2019. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs had not sought any relief against the applicants and as such, their impleadment application is liable to be rejected.
7. The Court below, after considering the objection filed by plaintiffs, had rejected the impleadment application filed by present petitioners vide order dated 7.4.2022. The present petitioners had preferred a Civil Revision against the order dated 7.4.2022 which was registered as Civil Revision No. 16 of 2022 and the Civil Revision preferred by present petitioners was also dismissed by the revisional Court vide judgment and order dated 30.5.2022. Both the Courts bel
AI
The decision to allow subsequent purchasers as parties in specific performance suits is justified when they demonstrate a semblance of title or interest to the property, supporting effective judicial....
The prior purchasers of the property are necessary and proper parties to a suit for specific performance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impleadment of a party is not necessary if no legal right has been created in their favor, and their presence is not required to effective....
Court cannot allow adjudication of collateral matters so as to convert a suit for specific performance of contract for sale into a complicated suit for title between the plaintiff/appellant.
The court affirmed the principle that parties with substantial interest must be joined for effective adjudication in specific performance suits, emphasizing judicial discretion under Order 1 Rule 10.
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
