Dismissed

Jacob George v. M/S. Jain Housing and

Madras HC16 Jul 2021A/4610/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application for impleadment was filed by a third party claiming rights via a sale agreement, seeking to be named as a defendant in a suit for specific performance. The Single Judge dismissed the application, determining that the applicant was at best a proper party rather than a necessary party for the suit.

What did the court decide?

Application for impleadment dismissed; no costs awarded.

Jacob George Vs M/S. Jain Housing and — Madras HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A.No.4610 of 2012 in C.S.No.337 of 2012

¶2

Reserved on : 16.04.2021 Pronounced on : 16.07.2021

¶3

A.No.4610 of 2012 in

¶4

C.S.No.337 of 2012

¶5

N.SESHASAYEE, J.,

¶6

This application is filed by a third party to the suit to implead himself as

¶7

a party defendant in the suit laid for specific performance of contract.

¶8

2.The rival submissions to the present application may be bullet pointed as below;

¶9

● The defendant herein is stated to own a block of land measuring about 20 and odd grounds. This property is jointly stated to be owned by the defendants. According to the plaintiff, it had entered into a sale agreement with the defendants on 15.03.2002 and has laid the suit for specific performance.

¶10

The applicant herein claims that he too had entered into a sale agreement with the same set of defendants on 14.05.1985 for the entire property and claims that he has been put in possession of the property. The applicant herein has initially laid O.S.No.1061 of 2003 before the concerned City Civil Court for bare injunction

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶12

1/4

¶13

A.No.4610 of 2012 in C.S.No.337 of 2012

¶14

seeking a decree that he should not be force-evicted by the

¶15

defendants in this suit.

¶16

Subsequently, the defendants had laid C.S.No.909 of 2006 for eviction of the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant's suit in O.S.No.1061 of 2003 was transferred to this Court and is pending in C.S.No.911 of 2007 and is now tagged with C.S.No.909 of 2007.

¶17

It appears there is yet another suit filed by a certain Molly Abraham again for bare injunction, which is not very relevant at this point of time. It is in this back drop the applicant has filed an impleading application in this suit.

¶18

3.The contention of the plaintiff is

¶19

a) that the plaintiff being the architect of a litigation, he has the right to choose his defendants;

¶20

b) the applicant has not even filed a suit for specific performance and hence, he has no locus standi to interfere in this suit.

¶21

c) that according to the defendants in this suit, their agreement with the applicant herein has been terminated

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶23

2/4

¶24

A.No.4610 of 2012 in C.S.No.337 of 2012

¶25

d) The suit between the applicant and the defendant in this suit are

¶26

collusive.

¶27

4.Heard both sides. The applicant herein, even according to his statement, is a mere agreement holder and that he was put in possession based on the agreement of sale. An agreement for sale does not clothe

¶28

the applicant with any right over the property, even though he has the right to defend his possession.

¶29

5.Given the factual context of the case, this Court does not find that the applicant has any inherent right as a necessary party to seek his impleadment, nor any optional right for this Court to consider his impleadment. Since he is possession of the property, at the best he may

¶30

be a proper party, but definitely not a necessary party. Hence, the right

¶31

of the plaintiff to choose his defendant needs to be respected.

¶32

6.In the result, this Application is dismissed. No costs.

¶33

Tsg

¶34

16.07.2021

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶36

3/4

¶37

A.No.4610 of 2012 in C.S.No.337 of 2012

¶38

N.SESHASAYEE, J.,

¶39

Tsg

¶40

A.No.4610 of 2012
in
C.S.No.337 of 2012

¶41

16.07.2021

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶43

4/4

Jacob George v. M/S. Jain Housing and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jacob George v. M/S. Jain Housing and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Swarna Krishnaswamy, and 4 others Vs Guru Dhananjay

N.Ganesan and another Vs K.Gopikrishna and 3 others

Mrs.Vijayalakshmi Vs S.Shri Subitha and 26 others

Mrs. S. Swarupa Vs N Baskar

Selvaraj Vs Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Ltd.

Revathi Vs Seethai Kasi