Dismissed

Virendra Pal Singh v. Sharankirat Singh

Rajasthan HC8 Oct 2018CW/14899/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the plea seeking impleadment of a co-owner in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The Court held that while the petitioner's share was crystallized by a partition decree, his presence was not necessary as the suit's outcome would determine the utility of that decree.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition failed; impleadment of the petitioner as a necessary party in the underlying suit for specific performance was dismissed.

Virendra Pal Singh Vs Sharankirat Singh — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 14899/2018

¶3

Virendra Pal Singh S/o Amarjeet Singh, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Chak 18-Z, Tehsil And District - Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sharankirat Singh S/o Harchand Singh, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Chak 16-Z, Tehsil And District - Sriganganagar (Raj.) (Plaintiff / Purchaser - Before The Trial Court)

¶7

Bhajan Kaur W/o Late Shri Gurcharan Singh, B/c Jat, R/o Chak 18-Z, Tehsil And District - Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶8

Amar Jeet Singh S/o Late Shri Gurcharan Singh, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Chak 18-Z, Tehsil And District - Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶9

Inder Jeet Singh S/o Late Shri Gurcharan Singh, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Chak 18-Z, Tehsil And District - Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶10

Karam Jeet Kaur W/o Jagga Singh And D/o Late Gurcharan Singh, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Chak 20-R/b, Bambiya Di Dhani, Post 19 R/b, Tehsil - Rasingh Nagar And District - Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. MM Dhera For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari

¶13

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

08/10/2018

¶16

The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 13.09.2018, passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’).

¶17

(2 of 5)

¶18

[CW-14899/2018]

¶19

The facts appertain to the present writ petition are that the petitioner’s grand father Gurcharan Singh entered into an agreement on 06.07.2010, agreeing to sell his agriculture land to Sharankirat Singh (respondent No.1 herein).

¶20

Upon non-execution of requisite sale deed, qua the disputed land, Sharankirat Singh (respondent No. 1 herein) filed a suit for specific performance on 19.11.2010, impleading sons and daughters of said Gurcharan Singh namely Bhajan Kaur, Amar Jeet Singh, Inder Jeet Singh and Karam Jeet Kaur.

¶21

During the pendency the said suit, the petitioner filed an application dated 21.08.2018, seeking his impleadment in the suit proceedings, indicating therein that for the properties belonging to Gurcharna Singh, he had filed a suit for partition on 29.10.2009, which has been decreed on 16.08.2018.

¶22

On the basis of said decree of partition, the petitioner contended that he is a necessary party having 1/8th share in the property.

¶23

Learned trial court rejected the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner inter alia observing that in the suit for specific performance, the petitioner – applicant is not a necessary party as his interest is being watched by his father, who is already present in the form of defendant No.2 (respondent No.3 herein). Trial court has also observed that the purported defence sought to be put forth by the applicant is already there on record, in the form of two separate written statements filed by different defendants.

¶24

Assailing the order dated 13.09.2018, passed by the trial court, Mr. Dhera learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the trial court has erred in rejecting petitioner’s application, seeking impleadment. He urged that the petitioner

¶25

(3 of 5)

¶26

[CW-14899/2018]

¶27

has 1/8th share in the property in dispute, per force the decree of partition dated 16.08.2018 and as such he was a necessary party.

¶28

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Bai Vs. Paras Finance, reported in AIR 2007 SC 3166 and contended that on the basis of principle enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner being co-owner is also a necessary party.

¶29

Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents, per contra supporting the order passed by the Court below submitted that the order passed by the Trial Court does not warrant any interference, inasmuch as the entire parcel of rights in relation to the disputed land were being watched by the sons and daughters of late Gurcharan Singh. Their share naturally includes 1/8th share belonging to the petitioner also and the petitioner does not and possibly cannot have any thing new to say.

¶30

He argued that if the petitioner is permitted to implead in the present suit, the nature of the suit would change and a simple suit for specific performance would be converted into a suit for title and respective rights of the defendants. It would thus lead to multiplicity of litigation.

¶31

In support of his submissions, Mr. Bhandari relied upon judgment of this Court in the matter of Narayani D/o Late Kishandasji Vs. Nandram Das S/o Kishandas, reported in (2017) 0 Supreme (Raj) 895 / (2017) 2 WLN 522 .

¶32

In rejoinder, Mr. Dhera frankly conceded that though the petitioner may not have a new defence and his defence would continue to remain the same, yet his presence is necessary in the

¶33

(4 of 5)

¶34

[CW-14899/2018]

¶35

suit proceedings, as his rights have been crystallized after passing of the decree of partition.

¶36

Having considered the submissions of rival counsels and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the present suit for specific performance wherein the subject matter of the dispute is as to whether the agreement to sell in question was executed and/or as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific performance, the presence of present petitioner notwithstanding the fact that he may be entitled for 1/8 share, is not at all necessary.

¶37

It is true that his right as far as his share is concerned have been crystallized pursuant to the decree of partition, nevertheless the same shall as a matter of fact, fructify and shall be dependent upon the fate of the present suit of the specific performance. In case the suit for specific performance is allowed his decree of partition will be a futility and the suit fails, he shall definitely be entitled for the fruits of the decree of partition.

¶38

The petitioner may be interested in the suit proceeding and thus interested party but not a necessary party. A necessary party is one, whose presence is warranted for complete and proper adjudication of the questions involved in the suit. Petitioners’ presence is not at all warranted in the subject proceedings. That apart the plaintiff is a dominus litis of his case. He cannot be compelled to sue someone. A party can be impleaded only if his right(s) are likely to be adversely affected.

¶39

(5 of 5)

¶40

[CW-14899/2018]

¶41

This Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned. The rejection of his impleadment will not in any manner prejudice the rights and cause of the petitioner.

¶42

As an upshot of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the petition. The writ petition thus, fails.

¶43

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶44

Himanshu/-7

Virendra Pal Singh v. Sharankirat Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Pal Singh v. Sharankirat Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yashoda Vs Smt. Veenu Gupta (Father Name Unknown)

Smt Sajju Vs K.K. Sharma and Ors.

Smt. Veena Ben Vs K.K. Sharma and Ors.

Chunnilal and Anr. Vs Ramesh Kumar

Dinesh Jakhar Vs State of Rajasthan

Satya Narayan Vs Santosh Devi