The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a trial court order rejecting an impleadment application. The petitioner, sister of a defendant and co-owner of ancestral property, sought to be added as a defendant in a suit for specific performance. The court held she was not a necessary party and no interference was warranted.
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.
SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 7578/ 14. 1
I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR
SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 7578/ 14.
Shant i Devi – Pet i t i oner . Vs. Hat hr oi Gar i Gr ah Ni r man Sahkar i Sami t i & Or s. - Respondent s.
DATE OF ORDER: 7th May, 2015.
PRESENT HON' BLE MS. JUSTI CE BELA M. TRI VEDI
Mr . G. P. Shar ma f or t he pet i t i oner .
SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 7578/ 14. 2
pr oper t y i n quest i on, whi ch i s an ancest r al pr oper t y. The sai d appl i cat i on has been r ej ect ed by t he t r i al cour t vi de t he i mpugned or der .
SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 7578/ 14. 3
t he cont r over si es r ai sed as bet ween t he par t i es t o t he l i t i gat i on must be gone i nt o onl y, t hat i s t o say, cont r over si es wi t h r egar d t o t he r i ght whi ch i s set up and t he r el i ef cl ai med on one si de and deni ed on t he ot her and not t he cont r over si es whi ch may ar i se bet ween t he pl ai nt i f f / appel l ant and t he def endant s i nt er se or quest i ons bet ween t he par t i es t o t he sui t and a t hi r d par t y. I n our vi ew, t her ef or e, t he cour t cannot al l ow adj udi cat i on of col l at er al mat t er s so as t o conver t a sui t f or speci f i c per f or mance of cont r act f or sal e i nt o a compl i cat ed sui t f or t i t l e bet ween t he pl ai nt i f f / appel l ant on one hand and Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 t o 11 on t he ot her . Thi s addi t i on, i f al l owed, woul d l ead t o a compl i cat ed l i t i gat i on by whi ch t he t r i al and deci si on of ser i ous quest i ons whi ch ar e t ot al l y out si de t he scope of t he sui t woul d have t o be gone i nt o. As t he decr ee of a sui t f or speci f i c per f or mance of t he cont r act f or sal e, i f passed, cannot , at al l , af f ect t he r i ght , t i t l e and i nt er est of t he r espondent Nos. 1 and 4 t o 11 i n r espect of t he cont r act ed pr oper t y and i n vi ew of t he det ai l ed di scussi on made her ei near l i er , t he r espondent Nos. 1 and 4 t o 11 woul d not , at al l , be necessar y t o be added i n t he i nst ant sui t f or speci f i c per f or mance of t he cont r act f or sal e. "
agr eement i n quest i on, she coul d not be sai d t o be a necessar y par t y i n t he sui t f or speci f i c per f or mance f i l ed by t he r espondent No. 1 agai nst t he ot her r espondent s. Ther e cannot be any di sagr eement t o t he deci si on of t he Apex Cour t i n case of Vi dur I mpex and Tr ader s Pvt . Lt d. & Or s. Vs. Tosh Apar t ment s Pvt . Lt d. & Or s. ( supr a) r el i ed upon by t he
SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 7578/ 14. 4
l ear ned counsel f or t he pet i t i oner , however , t he case of t he pet i t i oner does not f al l under any of t he pr i nci pl es l ai d down by t he Apex Cour t i n t he sai d case. Hence, t he pet i t i oner bei ng nei t her necessar y nor pr oper t y par t y, t he t r i al cour t has r i ght l y di smi ssed t he sai d appl i cat i on.
( BELA M. TRI VEDI ) J.
MRG
Al l cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at ed i n t he j udgment / or der bei ng emai l ed. MRG/ PS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners sister of a defendant and with a share in ancestral property is a necessary party to a suit for specific performance against her brother.
Whether the trial court rightly dismissed the application for impleadment as a necessary party to a suit for specific performance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.Relied on¶13
Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2012( 2) WLC ( SC) Civil 505
Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal & Ors.Applied¶14
Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal & Ors. 2005( 1) WLC ( SC) Civil 764
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shanti Devi
Hathrari Garia Graminirman Sahkari Samiti
Bela M. Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
