9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Civil Procedure (Code, for short). It was contended that the petitioners are the co-owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with the respondents No. 2 to 9 who are the defendants in the suit. It was contended that the petitioners are presently residing in Surat from the time the petitioner No. 1 got married with the petitioner No. 2. The petitioners have then set out the details under which they are claiming to be the co-owners of the suit property. It was contended that the consideration of Rs. 50.00 lakhs is also inadequate as the property is worth approximately Rs. 124 crores. It was contended that there is collusion between the original defendant No. 1 and the other defendants inter se, and as such, the petitioners are entitled to be joined as party defendants to the suit. 2. The application was opposed on behalf of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff on the ground that a third party has no locus standi to get impleaded in a suit for specific performance. It was contended that the defendants in their written statement filed in the suit have not mentioned about the petitioner No. 1 being the daughter of Padam Singh and the petitioners have now suddenly surfac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r party. It is submitted that the learned trial Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties. The learned Senior Counsel was at pains to point out that the petitioners have been declared to be the co-owners by the Inventory Court and thus the impleadment could not have been refused. It is submitted that although section 19 of the Specific Relief Act enumerates the parties against whom a specific performance of a contract may be enforced, no prohibition can be read into section 19 of the Specific Relief Act against impleadment of a person who is not a party to the agreement to sell. It is thus submitted that section 19 of the Specific Relief Act cannot be pressed into service to refuse such impleadment. 6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Shri Agni, the learned Counsel for the respondents that a stranger to the agreement of sale cannot be impleaded as a party defendant, as has been rightly held, by the learned trial Court. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) (Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra alias Gadasa Guru), (1995)3 S.C.C. 147 (ii) (Kastur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held that section 19 is exhaustive as to the persons against whom a contract can be specifically enforced. In that case a person claiming title adverse to that of the vendor had sought impleadment The Supreme Court held that such a person claiming a title adverse to that of the vendor, cannot be impleaded, as it would enlarge the scope of the suit from one of specific performance to that of a title suit. In a later, two Judge bench decision, in the case of (Sumatibai v. Paras Finance Co.,)", (2007)10 S.C.C. 82 the Supreme Court held that Kasturi (supra) does not lay down as an absolute proposition that a stranger to the agreement can never be joined as a party defendant in a suit for specific performance. It has been held that a third party cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance if he has no semblance of title in the property in dispute. 10. In the case of (Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd.), 2010(4) Bom.C.R. 638(S.C.) : (2010)7 S.C.C. 417 the Supreme Court reiterated that the discretion of the Court to add a person as a party is limited to persons found to be necessary or proper parties. In the facts of tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r party, the Court may direct his addition as a defendant; but if the Court finds that his addition will alter the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action, it may dismiss the application even if he is found to be a proper party, if it does not want to widen the scope of the specific performance suit; or the Court may direct such applicant to be impleaded as a proper party, either unconditionally or subject to terms. For example, if 'D' claiming to be a co-owner of a suit property, enters into an agreement for sale of his share in favour of 'P' representing that he is the co-owner with half share, and 'P' files a suit for specific performance of the said agreement of sale in respect of the undivided half share, the Court may permit the other co-owner who contends that 'D' has only one-fourth share, to be impleaded as an additional defendant as a proper party, and may examine the issue whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement in respect of half a share or only one-fourth share; alternatively the Court may refuse to implead the other co-owner and leave open the question in regard to the extent of share of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roposition that a third party can never be joined as a party defendant in a suit for specific performance. In a later decision in the case of Mumbai International Private Ltd. (supra), it has been held that there is no conflict of opinion in the decisions in the case Kasturi and Sumatibai (supra). The decision in the case of Mumbai International Private Ltd. makes it explicit that there may be situations where such impleadment can be ordered and the court while allowing such impleadment can impose appropriate conditions. Para 24.2 of the said judgment would show that in a given case a tenant in possession can be impleaded as party, being a necessary party in so far as prayer for delivery of actual possession is concerned. Para 24.4 would show that in a given case a co -owner can be impleaded, subject to the condition that only issues relating to the specific performance will be gone into, i.e. whether the contract should be specifically enforced or not. 12. It can thus clearly be seen that the question entirely depends on facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case the trial Court as noticed earlier had found some favour with the case set up, based on the final order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
