K.B. Gupta & Anr. vs Harbhajan Singh & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 3394 Del

*                HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+           CM APPL.16572/2016 in R.F.A. No.110/2008

                                               Pronounced on: 9th May, 2016

       K.B. GUPTA & ANR.                               ..... Appellants
                     Through:        Nemo.


                            versus


       HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS.                          ..... Respondents
                     Through:        Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi, Advocate for
                                     the applicant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

CM APPL.16572/2016 (O.1 Rule 10 CPC)

1. This is an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151

CPC filed by the applicants for being impleaded as a party to the

present appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants. I have also

gone through the record.

3. The appellant herein filed a suit for specific performance and

permanent injunction against respondents No.1 and 2 claiming that

the respondents/their predecessor-in-interest had vide agreement to

sell dated 11.05.1988 agreed to sell the suit property, measuring 9

bighas and 3 biswas, situated in the village chattarpur, Tehsil

Mehrauli, New Delhi to the appellants for a total consideration of

Rs.9,50,000/-. It has been stated that the appellants on the basis of

the said documents purported to have been executed by the

respondents filed a suit for specific performance against the

respondents in order to protect their title.

4. The learned trial Court after completion of the pleadings framed

the following issues:-

"1. Whether there is an agreement to sell the farmland in question to the plaintiff, if so, then to what effect? OPP.

2. Whether the receipts Ex.P-1 to P-2 are not the receipts taken by the plaintiff by advancing loan? OPP.

3. Relief."

5. The parties adduced their respective evidence and the Court

thereafter hearing the arguments dismissed the suit.

6. The appellants/plaintiffs feelings aggrieved against the said

judgment and decree preferred the present appeal which is RFA

No.110/2008 and is pending for the last 7-8 years for hearing.

7. In the meantime, the present applicants filed an application under

Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for being

impleaded as a party on the ground that the mother of the

applicants had purchased the suit property from the

respondents/predecessor-in-interest for a valuable consideration

way back in the year 1988 and that she took possession of the

same. It has been contended that the applicants are in continuous

possession of the suit property for the last more than 27 years or so

and they have recently learnt about the fact that the

appellants/plaintiffs have filed the appeal against the dismissal of

their suit.

8. He has contended that the respondents in the written statement has

admitted that their predecessor-in-interest had sold the suit property

during her lifetime for consideration to some purchaser although

the name of the present applicants have not been given. On the

strength of the same, it has been contended by the learned counsel

for the applicants that they be impleaded as a party to the present

suit. The learned counsel for the applicants have placed reliance on

the following judgments; Adapa Venkateswra Rao & Anr. vs.

Mohamman Suleman & Ors., AIR 1994 AP 50; Vimala Ammal vs.

C. Suseela & Ors., AIR 1991 Madras 209; and Dwarka Prasad

Singh & Ors. vs. Harikant Prasad Singh & Ors., AIR 1973 SC 655.

9. In Dwarka Prasad's case (supra), it was the plaintiff himself who

had made the subsequent purchaser as a party, while as, in the

present case, the purchaser wants to become a party, which is

against the concept of dominus litus.

10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the

applicants and have gone through the averments made in the

application as well as the judgments

11. Suffice it would be here to mention that the appellants have filed a

suit for specific performance against the respondents which was

contested and after contest the suit of the appellants was dismissed.

Appellants accordingly feelings aggrieved have preferred the

present appeal which is pending.

12. The present applicants have filed an application for being

impleaded as a party on the ground that they have vital interest in

the suit property as they are the purchaser since way back in 1988

and they have been in occupation and therefore, if the present

appeal is considered without their assistance, it may cause

prejudice to them and therefore, they have sought impleadment

under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

13. I have carefully considered the submissions. There is a doctrine of

dominus litis which means that a plaintiff is the master of his case.

The present appellants who are the plaintiff in the suit have filed

the suit against the actual owner claiming themselves to be the

purchasers. If the purchasers, namely, the plaintiffs have agreed

not to implead the present applicants that does not mean that the

applicants can appear into somebody else case and seek

impleadment and force the plaintiff to litigate against them. The

applicants have to select their own remedy and seek redressal of

their grievances by filing independent suit because the present

appellants being the plaintiffs in the suit is the master of his case

and against whom he wants to litigate, he would make him as a

party. The applicants cannot force the present appellants to litigate

against him. This will be totally contrary to the doctrine of

dominus litis.

14. So far as the judgments which have been relied upon by the

applicants are concerned, I have carefully gone through the same.

Two of the judgments are from Andhra Pradesh and Madras High

Court which are ignored as the facts are different in the said cases.

Moreover, they do not lay down any binding precedent for this

Court. The third judgment was a case where the plaintiff himself

has made the subsequent purchaser as a party.

15. The Apex Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) vs State of

Haryana & Anr, (2009) 7 SCC 363, has clearly laid down that the

documents like Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will, etc.

are the documents on the strength of which a party can perfect his

title but he cannot claim himself to be the owner of same until and

unless the appropriate direction is passed by the Court. In view of

this judgment the applicant cannot consider himself to be the

owner of the property. He must first perfect his title.

16. For the above mentioned reasons, I feel that the present application

of the applicants is totally misconceived and the same is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

MAY 09, 2016 vk