Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt. Tej Kaur And Ors. vs Jeet Singh And Ors. on 18 March, 1998
Equivalent citations: AIR1998RAJ201
ORDER P.C. Jain, J.
1. The petitioners filed this petition under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order dated 7-9-95 of the District Judge, Hanumangarh passed in Civil Suit No. 128/94 whereby the application filed by the petitioners in the above suit purporting to be under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. was rejected.
2. Shorn of details the facts necessary for the disposal of this petition may be stated. 50 Bighas of land was allotted to four brothers Pala Singh, Lal Singh, Sarwan Singh and Arjun Singh sons of Deva Singh. Except Pala Singh all the other brothers expired without leaving any issue. Pala Singh, therefore, became the sole owner of the above land. After the death of Pala Singh the above agricultural land devolved on his heirs namely, Smt. Tej Kaur widow, Darshan Singh and Balwanl Singh (sons), Chena and Manjeet Kaur (daughters) in equal shares of 10 bighas each. It is alleged that Darshan Singh and Balwant Singh began to alienate the said land without informing the other co-owners. Darshan Singh then executed an agreement of sale for 7 bighas of land in Stone No. 108/331, killa Nos. 5, 6, 15, 16, 27, 24 and 25 in favour of Akhtiyar Singh for which a suit for specific performance of contract was filed and decreed in favour of Akhtiyar Singh. Darshan Singh again executed another agreement of sale in favour of Jeet Singh and Balbir Singh for the sale of 11 bighas of the above land. A suit for specific performance of contract was also filed in respect of this agreement.
3. Since the petitioners are the co-owners in respect of the above land, they moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. for being impleaded as defendants in the above suit. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the above application.
4. I have heard Shri R.K. Singhal, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri S.S. Dhillon for the non-petitioners. Shri Singhal pointed out the fact that the petitioners are co-owners in the land sought to be alienated by Darshan Singh by executing the agreement for sale on 22-8-96. Since he has sold the land and the litigation in respect of the above land is pending, the petitioners being co-owners their presence in the suit is absolutely necessary for the just and proper decision of the case. He placed reliance on Jagjeet Singh v. Smt. Bhajani Devi, 1988 WLN (UC) 103. In this case Hon'ble J.S. Verma, J. (as he then was) held that under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. petitioners, being members of family are at least proper parties if not necessary parties. He, therefore, pleaded that the application of the petitioners be allowed and they be ordered to be impleaded in the above suit as defendants so that the real issues between the parties could be adjudicated without any difficulty.
5. Shri Dhillon on the other hand vehemently opposed the above application and submitted that there is a eatena of authorities holding the view that in a suit for specific performance the limited issue to be tried between the parties is whether any agreement to sale was executed between the parties and whether any of the parties failed to perform his part of the contract. Other persons, even though they may be co-owners and coparceners, cannot be allowed to be impleaded as parties in such a suit because if it is allowed, the scope of the suit would be enlarged which is not warranted by law. The issues arising in a suit for specific performance, being of limited nature, can be decided without any difficulty without impleadment of strangers though they may be co-owners. He has placed reliance on the following cases. E. Ajay Kumar v. Smt. Tulsi Bai, AIR 1973 Bombay 330, Raj K. Mehra v. Mrs. Anjali, AIR 1981 Delhi 237, Rasik Lal v. Natwarlal, AIR 1975 Guj 178, Sadhu Bohra v. Krishna Chandra Suthar, AIR 1985 Orissa 93, Aman Behal v. Smt. Aruna Kansal, AIR 1987 P & H 52, Krishan Lal v. Tek Chand, AIR 1987 P & H 197 and Panne Khushali v. Jeewan Lal, AIR 1976 MP 148 (FB).
6. I have paid my anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised before me. It is fundamental law that all the parlies which are necessary in a suit must be arrayed so that the real issues between the parties can be determined. A party will be necessary defendant if there is a right to relief against him in respect of the suit matter and his presence is necessary for the factual and complete adjudication of all the questions involved in the suit. The question of necessary parties must be decided with reference to the averments in the plaint and the matter in controversy. In a suit for specific performance the presence of strangers, including the co-owners or coparceners, is not necessary inasmuch as, they are not concerned with the relief sought or the defences raised. The most important thing that protects right of such strangers is that the judgment in such cases is not binding on them. In such suit the Court is called upon to address itself to the relevant issues like the execution of the agreement to sell and its violation. Since such an agreement is executed between the two parties, they are the only necessary parties and any dispute will be found existing only between them.
Hence the adjudication of such issues will be binding on the parties involved in the suit and not others including the co-owners. Hence even if such parties are excluded from being impleaded in the suit, no prejudice is caused.
7. I may refer to the Full Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in Panne Khushali v. Jeewan Lal Mathoo Khatik, AIR 1976 MP 148 (FB). The question referred to the Full Bench was as follows (at page 152) :--
"Whether in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, a third person intervener, who contends that the suit property is joint property of the applicant and he is also the co-owner of that property, would be made a party (defendant)."
After reviewing the case laws of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as well as of other Courts, the Full Bench answered the above question in the following terms :--
"Strangers to the contract making a claim adverse to the title of the defendant (vendor) contending that they are the co-owners of the contracted property are neither necessary nor proper party and are, therefore, not entitled to be joined as parties to the suit."
8. The same view was taken in other cases cited by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners as cited above.
9. For the above reasons I am disposed to hold that the petitioner, though they claim to be co-owners in respect of the land sought to be alienated in the above suit, are not necessary parties because the adjudication of title to the above land is not to be made in such a suit and the judgment rendered will not bind the petitioners who are strangers to the above suit.
10. For the above reasons I find no substance in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.