The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2015 passed in a suit on the file of the Addl. City Civil Judge, decreeing the suit for specific performance.
The Court observed that in a suit for specific performance, a non-party to the contract would ordinarily not be construed or treated as a proper and necessary party, but in the light of the peculiar/special facts and circumstances of the instant case, the appellant is both proper and necessary party to the suit and is entitled to be impleaded as an additional defendant No.2 in the suit.
Brief Facts:
Respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for specific performance and other reliefs against respondent No.2/defendant. In the said suit, respondent No.1/plaintiff specifically contended that respondent No.2/Sangha had executed lease-cum-sale agreement dated 10.10.1986 and issued a possession certificate dated 18.12.1986 and had put the plaintiff in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It was contended that despite the execution of the aforesaid document, respondent No.2-Sangha was attempting to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of third parties and as such, respondent No.1/plaintiff had instituted the said suit for specific performance and other reliefs.
Having regard to the uncontroverted and unchallenged evidence of the plaintiff, the trial Court proceeded to decree the suit in his favor, by passing the impugned judgment and decree, which is assailed in the present appeal.
The Court noted that an application was filed by the appellant seeking impleadment as an additional defendant to the suit is concerned; despite the appellant having obtained a registered lease-cum-sale agreement on 17.09.1987 prior to the institution of the suit in the year 2010, the appellant was not made party to the suit. The appellant has put forth a claim in respect of the very same suit schedule property, which was the subject matter of the suit and which culminated in the impugned judgment and decree.
The Court observed that in a suit for specific performance, a non-party to the contract would ordinarily not be construed or treated as a proper and necessary party, but in the light of the specific assertion on the part of the Sangha in the written statement that the suit was liable to be dismissed in view of execution of registered lease-cum-sale agreement dated 17.09.1987 in favour of the appellant, prior to the institution of the suit and since defendant/Sangha did not exercise due diligence and did not cross-examine PW.1 or adduced any oral or documentary evidence, on his behalf, it would be necessary for the appellant to take suitable steps to safeguard her alleged right, title, interest and possession of the suit schedule property by getting herself impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit. Under these circumstances, in the peculiar/special facts and circumstances of the instant case, the appellant is both a proper and necessary party to the suit and is entitled to be impleaded as an additional defendant No.2 in the suit.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
Case Title: Iravva K Purantar v Venkatesh & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S. R. Krishna Kumar
Case no.: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2018 (SP)
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Sharath N
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Janardhana G. N.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
