[Suit For Specific Performance] Impleading Proper Party Enables Court To Adjudicate Lis Completely: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that impleading of proper parties as defendants in a suit filed for specific performance of contract, enables the Court to adjudicate the lis pending before it completely and it will have complete facts and evidence before it, to arrive at a just and proper conclusion

A single judge bench of Justice Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the petition filed by one Chinnaswamy Gowda questioning a trial court order allowing an impleadment application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to bring 45 defendants on record in the suit filed by him. It observed,

“In the instant case, the contesting respondents may not be necessary parties but proper parties to the suit. The presence of proposed defendants would enable the Court to adjudicate the lis pending before it completely and will have complete facts and evidence before it, to arrive at a just and proper conclusion with regard to grant of relief sought by the plaintiff.”

The case pertained to a sale agreement for an immovable property. The main defendants were heirs of the alleged seller who refused to execute the alleged sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the suit for specific performance of the contract was filed.

During the pendency of the suit, Respondent Nos.9 to 53 filed an application to come on record as defendants, claiming they are the purchasers of sites carved out from the suit schedule property. This application came to be allowed.

The petitioner argued that the proposed defendants are not parties to the agreement of sale and the suit being one for specific performance, the proposed defendants are neither necessary nor proper parties.

The defendants opposed the petition saying they are bonafide purchasers of the sites having been in lawful possession as per the registered sale deeds in their favour.

The bench noted that proposed defendants have registered sale deeds in their favour and if plaintiff's suit is decreed in their absence, it would affect the independent claims asserted by them. Thus it observed, “If the application for impleadment is rejected, no effective decree can be passed in favour of the plaintiff in the absence of such party as the proposed defendants are claiming that they are registered sale deed holders in possession.”

Further noting that if the third party is impleaded in the suit, the scope of the suit for specific performance would be enlarged to a suit for title and possession, the bench said,

“In a suit for specific performance, it is essential that there is a valid and binding contract between the parties, and the proposed defendants have specifically contended that the subject agreement of sale is invalid document entered into between the plaintiff and Sri.Mariyappa (owner) fraudulently. The prior purchasers of the property are necessary parties only to the extent of ascertaining the validity of the agreement of sale. Hence, question of enlarging the scope of suit for specific performance would not arise.”

Court said while granting decree it is required to determine whether the owner was even competent to execute the agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff (on account of alleged prior sale to proposed defendants). Thus it held,

“The party who seeks specific performance of the contract is required to satisfy all the requirements essential for seeking the relief in equity. Hence, the proposed defendants who have purchased the suit schedule property prior to the subject sale agreement are necessary parties to the suit.”

The bench then opined, “The impleadment of the proposed defendants in the suit would help/aid the trial Court as to whether it should exercise and grant discretionary relief in favour of the plaintiff or not. The plaintiff being the dominus litus is required to prove his case based on the pleading and evidence. Mere allowing the proposed defendants to come on record would not enlarge the scope of the suit.”

The court permitted impleadment of the defendants subject to proposed defendants putting forth their defence only to the extent of prayer sought in the suit and not set up new prayer.

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Chinnaswamy Gowda And Shivramu C M Shivaramu & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.1621 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

Date of Order: 13-09-2023

Appearance: Advocate Sridhar N for Advocate N Roopa for Petitioner.

Advocate S. Rajashekar for R1 R2, AND R6 TO R8.

Advocate M V Sridhar Chakravarthi for R9, R10, R12, R14, R15, R17 TO R19, R21 TO R26, R32, R35 TO R37, R39, R40, R42 TO R45, R49, R52 AND R53.

Advocate G.R. Raveesha for R11, R13, R16, R20, R27 TO R31 R33, R34, R38, R41, R46 TO R48, R50, R51.

Click Here To Read/Download Order