TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y impleading respondent also as a party defendant in the suit. The contention of the petitioner is that Shivnath Misra, the vendor, had colluded with his sons and wife and had obtained a collusive decree in Suit No.393/90 under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. By operation thereof, they became co-sharers of the property to be conveyed under the agreement and, therefore, the respondent is a necessary and proper party. The trial court dismissed the petition and on revision, by the impugned order dated July 13, 1994, the High Court of Allahabad dismissed the civil Revision No.369/93. Thus this S.L.P. 2.The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent having secured an interest as a co-owner in the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommon question of law or fact would arise . 5. In this case, since the suit is based on agreement of sale said to have been executed by Misra. the sole defendant in the suit, the subsequent interest said to have been acquired by-the respondent by virtue of a decree of the Court is not a matter arising out of or in respect of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions in relation to the claim made in the suit, 6. Order 1, Rule 10(2) postulates that: 10(2) Court may strike out or add parties.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such term as May appeared to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined whether as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in suit for the specific performance is whether the vendor had executed the document and whether the conditions prescribed in the provisions of the Specific Relief Act have been complied with for granting the relief of specific performance. 9. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 says that necessary parties are persons who ought to have been joined as a party to the suit, a necessity to the constitution of the proper suit without whom no relief or order can be passed . In order that a person may be considered a necessary party, defendant to the suit, the conditions precedent must be (1) that there must be a right to some relief against him in respect of the dispute involved in the suit; and (2) that his presence should be necessary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayed for, on a mere admission of the claim by the defendant, if the court has reasons to insist upon clear proof, apart from the admission. It was therefore, held that a declaratory judgment since binds not only the parties actually before the court but also the persons claiming through them respectively within the meaning of s.43 of the Specific Relief Act, they are proper parties. The petitioner is not claiming this legal status nor through the respondent. In Lala Durga Prasad and Anr. v. Lala Deep Chand Ors., 1954 SCR 360, in a suit for specific performance the subsequent purchaser was held to be a necessary party. In this case the petitioner is merely seeking the specific performance of the agreement of sale. Section 15 of the Specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
