HC: Stranger to contract claiming adverse title by contending right of co- sharership in suit property is not a necessary/ proper party [Read Order]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the scope of a suit for specific performance cannot permit third party claiming to be joint owner in the property in question. A stranger to the agreement/contract making a claim adverse to the title of the defendant by claiming right of co- sharership in the suit property cannot be termed to be necessary party, nor proper party for adjudication of the case on merits.

Brief Facts

The Hon’ble High Court was hearing the Civil Revision against an order passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Chandigarh dismissing Application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Reasoning & Decision of the Court

The Hon’ble High Court after hearing Mr. Sapan Dhir counsel for revision petitioner (Ankush Anand) and Mr. A. M. Dar counsel for Respondent (Ram Kishan Singh) at length held that the party claiming independent title and possession adverse to the title of the vendor and not on the basis of agreement/contract, is not proper party and if said party is impleaded the scope of the suit for specific performance shall be enlarged and it will become a suit for title and it will involve intricated question of title which is not permissible in law.

It was further held by the Court that: "a stranger to the suit cannot be added/impleaded in a suit for specific performance merely in order to find out, who is in possession of the agreed property or to avoid multiplicity of the suits. A stranger to agreement cannot be impleaded as a party so as to convert a suit of one character into a suit of different character. It is only an assignee by sale in a case of specific performance who can be impleaded as party defendant."

The Hon'ble Court also observed that: "Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act enables the assignee by sale in a suit for specific performance to be impleaded as party. The aforesaid exception has been carved out in view of nature of suit being a specific performance, wherein the assignee by sale can protect his title and join the proceedings in view of law laid down in Thomson Press (India) Ltd.'s case. It is a settled principle of law that doctrine of lis pendens is a doctrine based on the ground that it is necessary for the administration of justice that the decision of a Court in a suit should be binding not only on the litigating parties, but on those who derive title pendente lite. This provision does not intend to annul the conveyance or the transfer otherwise to render it subservient to the right of a party to a litigation."

Held

The Court held that: the impugned order did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction and therefore, the Court dismissed the Revision Petition finding it devoid of any merit.

Read Order@LatestLaws.com

Picture Source :