High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the impleadment of an assignee as a plaintiff in a specific performance suit, finding no infirmity as the agreement allowed assignment and the assignee held the advance amount.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRP.NPD.No.3581 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP (NPD) No.3581 of 2018
1/4
CRP.NPD.No.3581 of 2018
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decretal
order passed in I.A.No.140 of 2016 in O.S.No.82 of 2014 dated 29.03.2017 on the file of the learned District Judge, Karaikal, thereby allowing the
petition to implead the proposed party as one of the plaintiffs.
respondent herein for specific performance, on the strength of the agreement for sale dated 31.05.2011. While pending the suit, the second respondent filed a petition to implead the first respondent as proposed plaintiff in the suit. The same was allowed and aggrieved by the same, the
present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
according to the second respondent, the petitioners have entered into an
agreement only with the second respondent and there is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the first respondent herein. Therefore, he had no locus standi to file the petition to implead himself as a party to
the suit, since he is not a necessary party to be heard in the suit. The suit itself was filed for specific performance based on the un-registered
2/4
CRP.NPD.No.3581 of 2018
agreement for sale dated 31.05.2011. Therefore, the agreement for sale
cannot be assigned in favour of the proposed first respondent and as such, the Court below ought to have dismissed the petition.
petition, it reveals that the terms of the agreement do not prohibit the assignment of the same. Therefore, the second respondent assigned the agreement for sale dated 31.05.2011 in favour of the first respondent herein, by receipt of the entire advance amount paid by him. Therefore, he become the bonafide holder of the assigned agreement for sale. In fact, he had purchased half a share of the first petitioner herein and as such, he is entitled to purchase another half share from the second deceased petitioner as per the terms of the agreement for sale. Therefore, the second respondent assigned the agreement for sale in favour of the first respondent herein on 09.06.2016. Since the first respondent already purchased a part of the
property from the first petitioner and as such, the Court below rightly allowed the petition to implead the first respondent as one of the proposed plaintiffs in the suit. That apart, it would not cause any prejudice to the
petitioners herein. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below.
3/4
CRP.NPD.No.3581 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Kv
16.04.2021
kv
To
1. The District Court, Karaikal.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, High Court of Madras.
CRP (NPD) No.3581 of 2018
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an agreement for sale prohibited from assignment can be assigned to implead the assignee as a party in a specific performance suit.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
G.Lakshmi Narayanan
L.Lakshmi
Kanishka
Subashni
P.R.N.Subramanian
P.Shanmugavelu
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
