Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 1306 (PAT)

Arun Kumar Yagnik v. Mary Baptist Thakur

1999-12-10

P.K.DEB

body1999
Judgment 1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 9.9.1998 passed by the Subordinate Judge-I, Bettiah, in Title Suit no. 44 of 1996 refusing the prayer of the petitioner to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit. 2. The opposite party no. 1 filed the above-mentioned suit against opposite party no. 2 for specific performance of the contract in respect of the suit land on the basis of Mahadenama. While the suit was proceeding the petitioner filed the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for allowing him to intervene in the suit. According to him, defendant no. 1 in the suit is not the owner of the suit land and Kamala Devi through whom the defendant no. 1 was claiming to be owner as her adopted son is totally myth and that the petitioner is the real descendant of Kamala Devi and as such, if he is not allowed to intervene in the suit then his valuable right over the suit property shall be in jeopardy. Such petition has been highly contested by the defendant no. 1 in the suit claiming that there is no scope of intervention by the petitioner in the suit for specific performance. it appears that already there is a suit pending being Title Suit no. 39/93 filed by the petitioner for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land in which defendant no. 1 is also a party. 3. It has been held by the impugned order that the suit for specific performance as contemplated under the Specific Relief Act is based on a contract between the parties and when that contract is individualistic one between the parties to suit, there is no scope for anybody to intervene in the suit for specific performance. When the title of the petitioner is already claimed in a separate suit and if he gets title over the suit property then he would be at liberty to seek relief as to whoever remains in possession in respect of the suit property either the defendant no. 1 or the plaintiff. But in the suit for specific performance, which is based on Mahadenarra, the petitioner being not a party to it cannot be allowed to be impleaded. There is clear finding on this point by a Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court as reported in 1976 MP. 1 or the plaintiff. But in the suit for specific performance, which is based on Mahadenarra, the petitioner being not a party to it cannot be allowed to be impleaded. There is clear finding on this point by a Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court as reported in 1976 MP. 148 (Pannekhushali and another vs. Jeewanlal Mathoo Khatik & another) and the said judgment is based on different judgments of different High Courts such as Calcutta, Allahabad and also that of the Apex Court as reported in 1953 (SC) 521 and 1958 (SC) 886. The same view has been reiterated by Orissa High Court as reported in 1985 Orissa 93 (Sadhu Behere & Ors. vs. Krishna Chandra Sutar & anr.) Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act enumerates the parties who can claim relief and against whom relief can be claimed under the specific Relief Act. None of the provisions of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act circumvents a person claiming to have right, title and interest over the property when he is a stranger and not connected with in any way with the agreement of sale. Mr.Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, has referred to a recent judgment of the Apex Court as reported in 1998 (8) SCC 466 (Baldev Singh vs. Punjab National Bank & ors.). That judgment refers to an eviction suit wherein an intervenor made an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that he is the real owner of the property in question. The Apex Court held that in a rent proceeding where the suit is based on the relationship of landlord and tenant there is no scope of intervention by a third party but considering the nature and circumstances of the case when a suit was already pending regarding the title the eviction proceeding was ordered to be stayed. That judgment has got no bearing in the present circumstances of the case. It is not a case wherein prayer has been made for staying of the proceeding and there is no scope of this court to mould the prayer under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to that of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. It is not a case wherein prayer has been made for staying of the proceeding and there is no scope of this court to mould the prayer under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to that of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error and hence there is no scope to interfere with the same by the High Court by invoking Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revision petition is dismissed having no force in it.