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 effectively decide the Suit. Additionally, the Court emphasized that the claim of the impleaded party was barred by the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. The petitioner in the present Writ Petition, is a plaintiff in Suit No. 45 of 2013, Sanjay Kumar Nagalia vs. ZX Sources Pvt. Ltd. which has been instituted before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, for grant of a decree of declaration and permanent injunction, as against the defendants, who have been impleaded therein.

2. The brief facts, which engaged consideration in the said case was, that the property, which constituted as to be the subject matter of the Suit, was the property bearing Municipal No. 220/221 (Old No. 224), Rajpur Road, Dehradun, measuring 4.37 bighas, (hereinafter, to be called as the property in dispute).

3. The property initially formed to be the property of the joint Hindu family, which comprised of Mahendra Kumar, the father of the petitioner, who was the Karta of the family, Rajiv Nagalia, the brother of the petitioner and the petitioner himself, who were coparceners of the property.

4. It is contended by the petitioner that the property was orally partitioned on 20th November, 2009, and the property was thus settled between the coparceners based upon their exclusive share and possession as per the terms of the oral partition. After the oral partition being carried, there arose certain disputes between the coparceners, which resulted into institution of a Civil Suit, being Suit No. 55 of 2010, Mahendra Kumar Nagalia vs. Rajiv Nagalia and Others, seeking a declaration and grant of decree of permanent injunction. But, however, during the pendency of the said Suit between the coparceners, a compromise was entered into between the parties to the Suit, and the dispute of Suit No. 55 of 2010, was admittedly resolved by way of a compromise which was entered between the coparceners.

5. It was that during the pendency of the said Suit, that taking advantage of the age of the father of the petitioner, who was at the relevant point of time 80 years of age, the respondent, herein, was able to manage and procure an agreement for sale, which was said to have been executed in their favour on 29th August, 2011. However, in this registered agreement for sale, it was stipulated that the sale deed would be ensured to be got executed on or before 28th February, 2012, but, as per the records no sale deed as a consequence thereto was ever got executed by the respondents.

6. However, on 25th November, 2011, the Suit between the coparceners, i.e. Suit No. 55 of 2011, was decided by way of a decree on the basis of the compromise, which became final qua its parties and was inter se binding between the coparceners, of which, Mr. Mahendra Kumar, was the Karta. As a consequence of the aforesaid compromise decree of 25th November, 2021, the petitioner became an exclusive owner of the respective part of the property, as an effect of the judgment of 25th November, 2011. The petitioner with a view to sell the property contends, that he has got a sale deed executed in favour of one M/s ZX Source Pvt. Ltd. which was a sale-deed registered on 7th December, 2011, for a sale consideration of Rs. 6,30,00,000/-. The purchaser of the property had executed three cheques towards the sale consideration, but however, the said cheques were not honoured by the Bank, because of the information given by the Bank, that there was a direction for “stop payment of the cheques” and further because of the fact, that the sale deed was ultimately found to be deficiently stamped.

7. The petitioner contended that due to the directives given by the proposed purchaser of the property, i.e. M/s ZX Sources Pvt. Ltd., since the cheques were dishonored and the bank had returned the cheque drawn on the branch of HDFC, Branch Preet Vihar, New Delhi, dated 7th December, 2021, with the remark of the Bank that the payment stopped by drawer. The sale deed, which was said to have been executed on 7th December, 2011, according to the petitioner, was null and void qua the rights of M/s ZX Sources Pvt. Ltd. which was