Madras High Court
V.Ravi @ P.V.Ravi vs V.Balakrishnan on 3 December, 2008
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:03.12.2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
C.R.P.PD.No.3336 of 2008
and
M.P.No.1 of 2008
V.Ravi @ P.V.Ravi ... Petitioner
Vs
1. V.Balakrishnan
2. V.Sreeraman
3. V.Chamumdeeswari
4. V.Suresh
5. V.Arun Kumar
6. V.Salammal
7. V.Kausalya
8. Minor Purusoth
9. Minor Gayathri
Minors rep by mother and
natural Guardian Rani
10.Veeraraghavan @ Veeraraghavapillai
11.Veeraraghavan ... Respondents
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 13.2.2008 made in I.A.No.773 of 2007 in O.S.No.181 of 2006 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, Senior Counsel For Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari
For respondents : Mr.V.Rajendran-RR1 to 9
Mr.N.Selvarajan-RR10 and 11
O R D E R
The revision petitioner/first respondent/plaintiff has preferred this civil revision petition as against the orders dated 13.2.2008 in I.A.No.773 of 2007 in O.S.No.181 of 2006 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chenalpattu in allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC by the respondents/proposed defendants 1 to 9 praying to implead themselves as defendants 3 to 11 in the suit.
2. The trial Court, while allowing the I.A.No.773 of 2007 has accepted the plea of the respondents 1 to 9 and has allowed the application.
3. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff contends that the order of the trial Court in allowing the I.A.No.773 of 2007 is wholly without jurisdiction both in law and on facts and that the trial Court has not taken note of the fact that in the suit for specific performance, the persons who are not parties in the suit agreement are not proper or necessary parties and that the respondents 1 to 9 cannot enlarge the scope of the specific performance suit, by making some alleged claims against the defendants in the suit and this aspect of the matter has not been taken into by the trial Court in the proper perspective and that R1 to R9 neither necessary nor proper parties to adjudicate upon the dispute and that the suit is in part heard stage and therefore, the claim of the third parties cannot be determined in the present suit which is outside the scope of the suit and therefore prays for allowing the revision petition.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 9 and respondents 10 and 11 submit that the proposed parties are not a strangers and that they have got direct interest in the suit properties and therefore, they have to be heard in the suit for deciding the controversies and that the trial Court has assigned proper reasons for allowing the application and the same need not interfered with by this Court sitting in revision. It is further plea of the learned counsel for the respondents that the defendants 1 and 2 as Kartha , they are holding the properties in trust and they cannot enter into an agreement of sale with the revision petitioner/plaintiff contrary to the interest of other co-owners/remaining owners/joint owners in the property and therefore the proposed parties are necessary and proper parties to the suit.
5. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff in support of his contention that the proposed parties are strangers to the suit relies on the decision reported in Kasturi-v- Iyyamperumal and others(2005(6) Supreme Court Cases 733)wherein the Honourable Apex Court has inter alia held that 'a person who claims independent title and possession adversely to title of vendor is not a necessary party, since an effective decree can be passed in his absence and no relief can be claimed against such party'. He also relies on the following observation made in the aforesaid Judgement at Page 739 at paragraph 11 wherein it is inter alia held as follows:
"The question that is to be decided in a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale is to the enforceability of the contract entered into between the parties to the contract. If a person seeking addition is added in such a suit, the scope of the suit for specific performance would be enlarged and it would be practically converted into a suit for title".
He also relies on the decision reported in R.V.E.Venkatachalam-v- Jeel Devanesan and others(2007(4)MLJ 461 wherein it is held as follows "It is the well settled position of law that in a suit for specific performance of contract to sell, the parties to the contract or if they are dead, their legal representatives are the necessary parties. In a suit for specific performance it is enough if the executants of the agreement are arrayed as defendants who are bound to carry out the agreement. The first defendant died in whose favour a power of attorney has been executed by the defendants 2 and 3. Third defendant has already sold his share to the plaintiff and accordingly the prayer in the suit has been amended claiming relief only as against second and fourth defendants."
Further the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner also draws this Court to the decision reported in P.Ashoku-v- Nehru Edwin Raj(2005(4)L.W.309 at 310) wherein this Court has held that 'plaintiff is the dominus litus and he cannot compelled to fight out the litigation whom he does not choose to bring into the list and the controversy between the plaintiff and the defendant would be complicated and the entire trial proceedings may have to be deflected to the interse controversy between the defendants and that Order I Rule 10(2) CPC cannot be stretched to such an extent of impleading the parties as the defendants would be having the inter se dispute among them.'
6. It is to be noted that the concept ' plaintiff is the dominus litus' is not an absolute rule in the considered opinion of this Court. It cannot be gain said that the proposed parties in I.A.NO.773 of 2007 have taken a plea that the suit property belongs to their ancestors and that they are the joint owners of the suit properties together with other various properties situate within the village of Sasthirambakkam and the properties were originally enjoyed by their ancestors and now they are enjoying the same as joint owners of the suit property and further that defendants 1 and 2 viz., respondents 10 and 11 have jointly entered into a sale agreement with the revision petitioner/plaintiff on 12.8.2001 for the sale of the suit property and that defendants 1 and 2 are not the sole owners of the suit property and both of them have no overall rights to deal with the suit property in any manner except a limited share and both of them have no legal rights to enter into a sale agreement with the plaintiff on behalf of the other family members for the sale of the property.
7. It is to be noted that it is the well settled principles of law that a Court of law has wide co-extensive power to implead any person at any stage of the suit as necessary party so as to enable the Court to effectively adjudicate upon the questions involved in the suit. For exercise of such power, however, the Court has to come to a finding that the party is a necessary or proper party. But the trial Court is to exercise its judicial discretion while allowing the application taking into account of the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly,litigants ought not to be added as defendants merely because they will be affected by the Judgment or orders of the Court incidentally. No doubt the power of a Court to implead the parties to the proceedings cannot so only depend on the question whether he has interest in the suit property. The proper question to be addressed by the Court is whether the right of the litigants or persons may be affected if they are not arrayed as parties. Such right will however necessarily include an enforceable legal right. The purport of the Rule under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is to prevent plurality of action. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some questions involved ; that would only make him a necessary witness etc., Further more, it is not merely that he has an interest in the Correct answer to some of the issues involved and has thought of relevant arguments to project. The only reason which makes him a necessary party to an action is so that he/she should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectively and completely settled unless he/she is a party to the case.
8. Generally, speaking in a suit of agreement of sale, the parties to the agreement will be the necessary and proper parties. But in the instant case, the proposed parties/respondents 1 to 9 have taken the plea that respondents 10 and 11 viz., defendants 1 and 2 are not the sole owners of the suit property and they have got some right in the properties mentioned in the agreement. It is not out of place to point out that the proper parties are those whose presence before the Court will be necessary in order to enable the Court effectively and completely adjudicate upon all the real questions involved in the suit although no relief in the suit is claimed against such persons. Bearing in mind all these principles, this Court is of the considered view that the proposed parties/respondents 1 to 9 are proper parties in the larger interest of justice for vindicating their direct substantial interest in the suit properties and they cannot be considered as aliens although it is to be stated specifically by this Court that they cannot claim any relief of declaring their rights in the suit filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff and in that view of the matter, this civil revision fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
9. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.773 of 2007 in O.S.No.181 of 2006 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. It is made clear that respondents 1 to 9 are proper parties to the proceedings, since they claim some semblance of direct substantial right as remaining co-owners/joint owners etc in the suit properties. The proposed respondents are directed to file their written statement before the trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and the trial Court is directed to frame necessary issues in this regard . But it is made clear by this Court that the proposed parties shall not claim any relief of declaring their rights in the suit and since the suit is in part heard stage, this Court in the interest of justice, directs the trial Court to dispose of the main suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed.
sg To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu