indu Bai and anr. Vs. Rajendra Kumar Bhandari and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - , with a prayer to add them as defendants 2 and 3. the application was resisted by the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent. 5. the law of specific performance places a peculiar type of obligation on a person, who does not hold perfect title, but has entered into agreement of sale. he is required to clear the hurdles or to perfect his title exclusively for the purpose of conveying the same to the vendee.orderl. narasimha reddy, j.1. the 1st respondent filed o.s. no. 33 of 2008 in the court of principal district judge, kadapa, against the 2nd respondent, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 10-02-2006. alternative relief, in the form of a decree for refund of the amount, received as advance under the agreement, was also prayed for. on coming to know that the petitioners herein have purchased the suit schedule property, the 1st respondent filed i.a. no. 2557 of 2008, under order i rule 10 c.p.c., with a prayer to add them as defendants 2 and 3. the application was resisted by the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent. through order, dated 23-01 -2009, the learned district judge, allowed the i.a. the same is challenged in this c.r.p.2. sri g. dasaradha rami reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that his clients are neither necessary, nor proper parties to the suit and there was no basis for the trial court to add them as parties. he contends that there is no privity of contract between the petitioners, on the one hand, and the 1st respondent, on the other hand, and in that view of the matter, they cannot be subjected to unnecessary litigation.3. sri s. arifullah, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, who filed caveat, submits that the adjudication in a suit for specific performance would be incomplete, if the subsequent purchasers are not made parties. he contends that a comprehensive adjudication takes place in the presence of everyone, who has concern, or claim, vis-avis the suit schedule property.4. the suit filed by the 1st respondent herein is the one, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, or in the alternative, a decree for refund of the amount advanced. the petitioners do not dispute that they have purchased the suit schedule property. the 1st respondent filed the application to implead the petitioners as parties to the suit. it is true that an individual cannot be subjected to unnecessary litigation and he cannot be made to answer a person with whom he does not have any privity of contract or other relation. this principle, however, needs a different approach, when it comes to the suits for specific performance. though the ultimate obligation, in the event of a suit decree for specific performance being passed, would rest upon the vendor under the agreement, in the context of recovery of possession or neutralizing the subsequent developments, it becomes essential to add everyone, who had a right or interest, vis-a-vis the property, either as on the date of the agreement of sale, or subsequent thereto.5. the law of specific performance places a peculiar type of obligation on a person, who does not hold perfect title, but has entered into agreement of sale. he is required to clear the hurdles or to perfect his title exclusively for the purpose of conveying the same to the vendee. reference may be made to sections 13 and 17 of the specific relief act, 1963. when such is the burden placed upon the party to the agreement of sale, it becomes imperative that everyone, who has acquired title, or interest over the property, is made a party to the proceedings, which in turn, would pave the way for effective and complete adjudication.6. one of the objects underlying the process of adjudication is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. in case the efforts made by the 1st respondent to implead the petitioners herein as parties to the present suit are thwarted, they shall have to institute another suit against the petitioners in the event of the present suit being decreed. by the same logic, separate suits have to be filed against persons, who acquire title or interest from time to time. many a time, wantonly or deliberately, the parties, who are enjoying the property may bring about such situations that is exactly the event, which is sought to be avoided, by permitting the applications to be filed under order i rule 10 c.p.c.7. learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon a judgment of the supreme court in kasturi v. iyyamperumal : 2005 (4) alt 19 (sc) : 2005 (4) scj 196 : (2005) 6 scc 733. the hon'ble supreme court laid broad principles relating to impleading of the parties. it was held that the persons, who are parties to the contract, or claiming through them, or a person who had purchased the property with or without notice, are necessary parties. it was also observed that a person, who claims independent title and possession adverse to that of the vendor, is not a necessary party. the petitioners fall to the first category of persons. apart from not helping the petitioners, the judgment cited by them, fortifies the case of the 1st respondent. the trial court had examined the matter from the correct perspective and this court is not inclined to interfere with the same.8. the civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. The 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 33 of 2008 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Kadapa, against the 2nd respondent, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 10-02-2006. Alternative relief, in the form of a decree for refund of the amount, received as advance under the agreement, was also prayed for. On coming to know that the petitioners herein have purchased the suit schedule property, the 1st respondent filed I.A. No. 2557 of 2008, under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., with a prayer to add them as defendants 2 and 3. The application was resisted by the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent. Through order, dated 23-01 -2009, the learned District Judge, allowed the I.A. The same is challenged in this C.R.P.

2. Sri G. Dasaradha Rami Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that his clients are neither necessary, nor proper parties to the suit and there was no basis for the trial Court to add them as parties. He contends that there is no privity of contract between the petitioners, on the one hand, and the 1st respondent, on the other hand, and in that view of the matter, they cannot be subjected to unnecessary litigation.

3. Sri S. Arifullah, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, who filed caveat, submits that the adjudication in a suit for specific performance would be incomplete, if the subsequent purchasers are not made parties. He contends that a comprehensive adjudication takes place in the presence of everyone, who has concern, or claim, vis-avis the suit schedule property.

4. The suit filed by the 1st respondent herein is the one, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, or in the alternative, a decree for refund of the amount advanced. The petitioners do not dispute that they have purchased the suit schedule property. The 1st respondent filed the application to implead the petitioners as parties to the suit. It is true that an individual cannot be subjected to unnecessary litigation and he cannot be made to answer a person with whom he does not have any privity of contract or other relation. This principle, however, needs a different approach, when it comes to the suits for specific performance. Though the ultimate obligation, in the event of a suit decree for specific performance being passed, would rest upon the vendor under the agreement, in the context of recovery of possession or neutralizing the subsequent developments, it becomes essential to add everyone, who had a right or interest, vis-a-vis the property, either as on the date of the agreement of sale, or subsequent thereto.

5. The law of specific performance places a peculiar type of obligation on a person, who does not hold perfect title, but has entered into agreement of sale. He is required to clear the hurdles or to perfect his title exclusively for the purpose of conveying the same to the vendee. Reference may be made to Sections 13 and 17 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. When such is the burden placed upon the party to the agreement of sale, it becomes imperative that everyone, who has acquired title, or interest over the property, is made a party to the proceedings, which in turn, would pave the way for effective and complete adjudication.

6. One of the objects underlying the process of adjudication is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In case the efforts made by the 1st respondent to implead the petitioners herein as parties to the present suit are thwarted, they shall have to institute another suit against the petitioners in the event of the present suit being decreed. By the same logic, separate suits have to be filed against persons, who acquire title or interest from time to time. Many a time, wantonly or deliberately, the parties, who are enjoying the property may bring about such situations that is exactly the event, which is sought to be avoided, by permitting the applications to be filed under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal : 2005 (4) ALT 19 (SC) : 2005 (4) SCJ 196 : (2005) 6 SCC 733. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid broad principles relating to impleading of the parties. It was held that the persons, who are parties to the contract, or claiming through them, or a person who had purchased the property with or without notice, are necessary parties. It was also observed that a person, who claims independent title and possession adverse to that of the vendor, is not a necessary party. The petitioners fall to the first category of persons. Apart from not helping the petitioners, the judgment cited by them, fortifies the case of the 1st respondent. The trial Court had examined the matter from the correct perspective and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

8. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.