Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 975 (RAJ)

Sultan Ram v. ADJ (FT) No. 1, Hanumangarh

2005-04-04

PRAKASH TATIA

body2005
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 04.02.2005 passed by the trial Court on the plaintiff s application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10, CPC by which the petitioners sons were impleaded as party in the suit for specific performance of contract. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for specific performance of contract which is being contested by the petitioners. The petitioners took the plea in the written statement that the land in question is an ancestral property, therefore, no decree for specific performance of contract can be passed. According to the petitioners, their sons filed a suit for partition before the revenue Court and that suit has been decreed. 4. The plaintiff finding this fact submitted the said application and prayed that the petitioners sons be impleaded as parties in the suit. 5. According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, in view of the settled law that in a suit for specific performance of contract, no one else, other than the party to the agreement, can be impleaded as party to the suit. It is also submitted that even any co-sharer may not be a necessary or even a proper party in a suit for specific performance of contract and, therefore, the trial Court should not have impleaded them as party. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners. 7. It is true that in a suit for specific performance of contract, the necessary parties are only those persons who are party to the contract and even any person claiming his share in the property and even the person who is claiming himself to be the sole owner of the property is neither a necessary nor proper party in such type of suit because no enquiry about title is permissible in such suit. But at the same time, it is also a law that person who holds a title or acquires the title subsequent to the agreement or needed to give effect to the decree of specific performance of contract by signing the document -deed of transfer, then he is proper and sometimes necessary party because of the fact that the title can be conveyed by the person who agreed to transfer the property but before that, if the title has been transferred in favour of someone else, he is also required to convey the title to the person found entitled for the tile and required to deliver possession to the person in whose favour, there is an agreement to sale and the Court passes decree in whose favour. 8. Apart from it, in this case, the petitioners are not going to suffer because of the fact that they need not to indulge in any other issue except to contest the suit on the basis of the pleas taken by the plaintiff in the suit. 9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition, having no merit, is hereby dismissed.