Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sandeep Kaur vs Darshan Singh & Ors on 19 December, 2017
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15675 / 2017
Sandeep Kaur W/o Sukhdeep Singh, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Jat
Sikh, R/o Village 25 FFB, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Darshan Singh S/o Bachan Singh, B/c Mehra, R/o Manaksar,
Tehsil Sri Karanpur.
2. Gyan Kaur D/o Bachan Singh, B/c Mehra, R/o Manaksar, Tehsil
Sri Karanpur.
3. Darshana Devi D/o Bachan Singh, B/c Mehra, R/o Manaksar,
Tehsil Sri Karanpur.
4. Rani D/o Bachan Singh, B/c Mehra, R/o Manaksar, Tehsil Sri
Karanpur.
5. Sarjeet Kaur W/o Gyan Singh, B/c Mehra, R/o Manaksar, Tehsil
Sri Karanpur.
6. Makhan Singh S/o Gyan Singh, B/c Mehra, R/o Manaksar, Tehsil
Sri Karanpur.
7. Kulvindra Singh @ Kala S/o Gyan Singh, B/c Mehra, R/o
Manaksar, Tehsil Sri Karanpur.
8. Satti D/o Gyan Singh, B/c Mehra, R/o Manaksar, Tehsil Sri
Karanpur.
9. Rajveer Kaur W/o Late Sh. Chhindrapal Singh, R/o Bhuttiwala,
Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar.
10. Jyoti D/o Late Sh. Chhindrapal Singh, R/o Bhuttiwala, Tehsil
Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar.
11. Nandlal S/o Sh. Dularam, B/c Kamboj Sikh, R/o Manaksar,
Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar.
12. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Dularam, B/c Kamboj Sikh, R/o
Manaksar, Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar.
13. Michel S/o Kishanchand, B/c Kamboj Sikh, R/o Manaksar,
Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar.
14. The Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri
Ganganagar
----Respondents
(2 of 4)
[CW-15675/2017]
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.J. Gupta
_____________________________________________________
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
19/12/2017
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition against
the order dated 16.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar whereby his
application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure
has been rejected.
Succinctly stated the facts of the present case are that
plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement
dated 19.05.1990 against the defendant.
During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner has moved an
application dated 18.05.2017 interalia contending that after
execution of the contentious agreement to sell, the plaintiff had
executed another agreement, in her favour on 20.11.2012.
The Trial Court has rejected petitioner's application for
impleadment, interalia observing that in a suit for specific
performance of an agreement, the petitioner, having an
agreement to sell in her favour does not have a right to intervene.
Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the order impugned passed by the learned Court below is illegal
and contrary to the principles, governing impleadment. He
submitted that the petitioner is also having an agreement to sell in
his favour and if the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed it would
(3 of 4)
[CW-15675/2017]
be prejudicial to petitioner's right.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon
perusal of the order under challenge, this Court does not find any
error or infirmity in the order dated 16.11.2017. This Court in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 12331/2017, vide its judgment dated
03.07.2017 has held that a person having agreement to sell in his
favour cannot be treated to be a person having right, interest and
title over the property, and thus cannot claim impleadment, in a
suit for specific performance. It would not be out of place to
reproduce the relevant part of the judgment which reads thus:-
"The case at hand is quite different, as out of
seven applicants, only one, namely Shanti Lal is
having right, title and interest in true sense. It is
Shanti Lal alone, who is having registered sale deed in
his favour, whereas all other applicants have laid their
claim on the basis of separate agreements to sell in
their favour, executed by said Roop Lal Kakhani during
the period ranging from 1990 to 2005 (prior to the
contentious agreement). Without observing anything
about their individual rights, this Court holds that
Shanti Lalrespondent No.5 having a registered sale
deed or title in his favour, falls within the ambit of
phrase "right, title and interest in the property" and
has a definite right to be impleaed.
As an upshot of the above discussion, this Court
holds that respondent No.5 Shanti Lal, having
purchased the property by way of registered sale
deed is a necessary party whereas, other applicants
who are having agreement to sell simplicitor, despite
being a proper party cannot be impleaded as
defendants, as they have staked their claim on the
basis of unregistered agreement to sell and long
(4 of 4)
[CW-15675/2017]
possession. Their impleadment in the suit proceedings
if permitted, would definitely change the nature of the
suit and it would become a suit for title, and would
stretch way beyond the confines of a suit for specific
performance."
Following the enunciation aforesaid, this Court does not find
any force in the present writ petition, for which it is dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA), J.
anurag/68