2018 (4) TMI 1980 - HC - Indian Laws

Refusal to implead the petitioners as defendants in Special Civil Suit - specific performance of an agreement to sell - Order I, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure - HELD THAT - In the present case the trial Court as noticed earlier had found some favour with the case set up, based on the final order passed in the inventory proceedings in which the applicant No. 1 is shown to be the heir in respect of the suit property. In my considered view the petitioners would be proper parties to the suit which would enable the court to effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and to decide the controversy in the suit namely whether the relief of specific performance should be granted and if granted in which form i.e. whether or not restricting it to a certain share and the like. This is not a case where, unlike the case of Kasturi 2005 (4) TMI 635 - SUPREME COURT (where the impleadment was sought on the basis of an adverse title against the Vendor) would enlarge the scope of the suit. More over the impleadment can be allowed subject to appropriate conditions as set out in the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd. 2010 (7) TMI 1159 - SUPREME COURT . This is not a case where, prima facie, it can be said that the petitioners do not have a 'semblance of a title' as held in the case of Sumatibai 2007 (10) TMI 653 - SUPREME COURT so as to refuse impleadment. Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act also cannot come in the way of such impleadment. This is because section 19 of the Act enumerates the persons against whom specific performance of a contract can be enforced, which would mean that section 19 set outs the party/parties who can be arrayed as necessary parry to the suit, inasmuch as, for enforcing such specific performance, the presence of the parties as enumerated in the said section would be necessary. As noticed earlier, no relief need be claimed against a proper party. Thus, if the considerations as set out in Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code are satisfied, a party can be added as a proper party. The impleadment needs to be granted - The application for impleadment filed by the petitioners is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Impleadment of petitioners as defendants in a suit for specific performance.
2. Determination of necessary or proper parties in a suit for specific performance.
3. Interpretation of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act.
4. Application of legal precedents on impleadment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Impleadment of petitioners as defendants in a suit for specific performance:

The petition challenges the trial court's order refusing to implead the petitioners as defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 25/2011/A. The petitioners claimed co-ownership and possession of the suit property, arguing their entitlement to be joined as defendants. They contended that the consideration for the property was inadequate and alleged collusion among the original defendants.

2. Determination of necessary or proper parties in a suit for specific performance:

The trial court held that third parties, who are strangers to the agreement, cannot seek impleadment in a suit for specific performance. It concluded that such co-owners, not being parties to the agreement, are neither necessary nor proper parties to determine the controversy in the suit. The court emphasized the principle that a plaintiff, being dominus litis, is entitled to decide who should be arrayed as defendants, subject to the court's powers under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Interpretation of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act:

The petitioners argued that Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, which enumerates parties against whom specific performance can be enforced, does not prohibit the impleadment of persons not party to the agreement. They contended that the petitioners, having been declared co-owners by the Inventory Court, should be impleaded. The court noted that Section 19 is exhaustive regarding persons against whom a contract can be specifically enforced, but it does not preclude impleadment of proper parties who may not be necessary for enforcing specific performance.

4. Application of legal precedents on impleadment:

The court examined various precedents, including:
- Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal & Ors.: Held that persons claiming adverse title cannot be impleaded as it would convert the suit for specific performance into a title suit.
- Sumatibai v. Paras Finance Co.: Clarified that a third party with no semblance of title cannot be impleaded, but did not establish an absolute rule against impleadment of strangers.
- Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd.: Reiterated the court's discretion to add necessary or proper parties, providing illustrations of when such discretion can be exercised.

The court concluded that the petitioners would be proper parties, enabling effective and complete adjudication of the suit. The trial court's reliance on the decision in Anil Kumar Singh was misplaced as it dealt with a different factual scenario.

Conclusion:

The petitioners' impleadment was allowed, subject to the condition that only issues relating to the grant of specific performance would be considered in the suit. The court emphasized that the presence of the petitioners would not enlarge the scope of the suit but would aid in resolving the controversy effectively. The impugned order was set aside, and the application for impleadment was granted, with no order as to costs.