Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1902 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTSuit 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.
|