This writ petition challenged the rejection of an application to be impleaded as a necessary party-defendant in a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, on the grounds of ancestral property rights.
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. 7606/ 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. 7606/ 14.
Ramavat ar Shar ma – 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 .
O R D E R
SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 7606/ 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. 7606/ 14. 3
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, he 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. 7606/ 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
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, being the son of a respondent and a member of the ancestral property, is a necessary party to a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement.
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
Whether the appellate court ought to interfere with the trial court's order dismissing the impleadment application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.Explained¶14
Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2012(2) WLC (SC) Civil 505
Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal & Ors.Relied on¶15
Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal & Ors. 2005(1) WLC (SC) Civil 764
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramatavar Sharma
Hathroi Garabh Gram Nirman Sahkari Samiti
Bela M. Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
