2015 (11) TMI 1902 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for specific performance - application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC made for impleadment of defendants - individual right over the property or not - HELD THAT - In the facts of the present case, after dismissal of probate petition on 01.05.2010, right of Ranjit Singh-petitioner in the property owned by Swaran Singh is no longer in dispute. If he is made party to the suit, it will not enlarge the scope of the suit as there is no dispute with regard to his share in the property left by Swaran Singh after dismissal of probate petition. Since after being impleaded as party on an earlier application, he has filed his written statement and has led evidence, it would not amount to enlarging the scope of dispute. Moreover, as per the judgments passed by this Court in Amrik Singh 2008 (12) TMI 835 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT and Smt. Sarita Devi Jain's case 2008 (12) TMI 836 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , it has been held that in a suit for specific performance, the vendor can only sell to the extent of his share in favour of vendee. He cannot sell the property/share of other co-sharers. With the dismissal of probate petition, the dispute between defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the present petition has come to rest and in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the present petitioner should have been impleaded as party to the suit. Reference, at this stage, can be made to the verdict given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport's case 2010 (7) TMI 1159 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it has been observed If the principles relating to impleadment, are kept in view, then the purported divergence in the two decisions will be found to be nonexistent. The observations in Kasturi 2005 (4) TMI 635 - SUPREME COURT and Sumtibai 2007 (10) TMI 653 - SUPREME COURT are with reference to the facts and circumstances of the respective case. In Kasturi, this Court held that in suits for specific performance, only the parties to the contract or any legal representative of a party to the contract, or a transferee from a party to the contract are necessary parties. In Sumtibai, this Court held that a person having semblance of a title can be considered as a proper party. Sumtibai did not lay down any proposition that anyone claiming to have any semblance of title is a necessary party. Nor did Kasturi lay down that no one, other than the parties to the contract and their legal representatives/transferees, can be impleaded even as a proper party. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd., Amrik Singh and Smt. Sarita Devi Man's case , this Court deems it fit that the petitioner is a necessary party to the suit and the application filed by him under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC should have been allowed. The impugned order is set aside - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading as party defendant.
2. Rights of petitioner after dismissal of probate petition.
3. Dispute over share in the suit property.
4. Whether co-owner is a necessary party in a suit for specific performance.
5. Interpretation of judgments related to specific performance suits.
6. Application of legal principles regarding impleadment in specific performance suits.

Issue 1: Dismissal of application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading as party defendant:
The challenge in this case pertains to the dismissal of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleading the petitioner as a party defendant. The petitioner, claiming to be a co-owner of the property in dispute, sought to be included in the proceedings. The court initially allowed his application but later reversed the decision, citing the petitioner's appearance as a General Power of Attorney (GPA) for other defendants and considering the new application a tactic to prolong the litigation.

Issue 2: Rights of petitioner after dismissal of probate petition:
After the dismissal of the probate petition, the petitioner claimed equal rights in the property sold by the other defendants to the plaintiff. The court considered the petitioner's rights in the property owned by his father, which became undisputed after the probate petition's rejection. The court highlighted that including the petitioner in the proceedings would not expand the suit's scope due to the absence of any dispute regarding his share post the probate petition's dismissal.

Issue 3: Dispute over share in the suit property:
The court examined the dispute over the share in the suit property left by the deceased, emphasizing the necessity of impleading the petitioner to prevent multiple litigations and ensure a fair trial. Reference was made to judgments indicating that the vendor's ability to sell is limited to their share, and including the petitioner as a party would not unduly enlarge the suit's scope but rather facilitate a just resolution.

Issue 4: Whether co-owner is a necessary party in a suit for specific performance:
The petitioner argued that as a co-owner, he should be a necessary party in a suit for specific performance to ensure a comprehensive adjudication. Conversely, the plaintiff contended that a co-owner with adverse claims need not be included as a party in such suits, citing legal precedents to support this position.

Issue 5: Interpretation of judgments related to specific performance suits:
Various judgments were referenced to support both parties' arguments regarding the necessity of impleading a co-owner in a suit for specific performance. The court analyzed these judgments to determine the applicability of including the petitioner as a party defendant based on the specific circumstances of the case.

Issue 6: Application of legal principles regarding impleadment in specific performance suits:
The court reviewed legal principles related to impleadment in specific performance suits, emphasizing the importance of balancing the interests of all parties involved. It cited Supreme Court and High Court decisions to support the conclusion that the petitioner, as a co-owner with established rights in the property, should be impleaded to ensure a just and conclusive resolution of the dispute.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the court's considerations regarding the dismissal of the application, the petitioner's rights post the probate petition's rejection, the necessity of including the petitioner as a party, and the interpretation of legal principles in specific performance suits. The court's decision to allow the petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC underscores the importance of ensuring all relevant parties are involved in the proceedings to achieve a fair and equitable resolution.