NAVNEET SINGH ANAND Vs. NAVEEN SAREEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case in CS(OS) No.1449/2012 filed by the same person who is plaintiff in CS(OS) No.1448/2012 is that vide agreement to sell dated 2.10.2008, the defendants in this suit had agreed to sell their 1/4th undivided share in the property bearing number A-33, Vishal Enclave, Vishal Cinema Road, New Delhi-110 027 to him for a consideration of Rs.2.60 crore. The plaintiffs are seeking specific performance of that agreement in this suit. Shri Madan Lal Sarin died on 1.11.2011 and the defendants are his legal heirs. These applications have been filed by Mr. Dinesh Sareen and Mr. Bharat Sareen, both sons of late Shyam Lal Sareen, seeking their impleadment in the suit. The applicants are the legal heirs of late Shyam Lal Sareen and they also claim to be the co-owners in the property bearing number A-33, Vishal Enclave, Vishal Cinema Road, New Delhi-110 027. The applications are opposed by the plaintiff.

(2.) IT is an admitted position that the property bearing number A-33, Vishal Enclave, Vishal Cinema Road, New Delhi-110 027 was owned by four brothers namely Shri Madan Lal Sareen, Shri Satish Chander Sareen, Shri Ramesh Chander Sareen and Shri Shyam Lal Sareen. It is also an admitted position that neither the applicants nor their father was a party to the agreement to sell dated 6.5.2008 executed by late Madan Lal Sareen in favour of the plaintiff. The partition of the property bearing number A-33, Vishal Enclave, Vishal Cinema Road, New Delhi- 110 027 by metes and bound has not taken place so far amongst its co-owners. A civil suit has been filed by the applicant which is pending before the Civil Court at Jammu and a stay order is stated to have been passed by that Court against the alienation of this suit property. Another suit has been filed in Delhi for partition of the suit property by metes and bounds.

(3.) IN Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, (2005) 6 SCC 733. In that case, the appellant had filed a civil suit against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for specific performance of contract, entered into between him and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11, who were not parties to the contract and were setting up a claim of independent title and possession over the contracted property filed an application to implead them as defendants. The trial Court allowed them to be added as parties and its decision was upheld by the High Court. Reversing the decision of the High Court, Supreme Court held that stranger to the contract namely respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11, who were making claims independent and adverse to the title of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were neither necessary nor proper parties and, therefore, were not entitled to join as party defendants to the suit for specific performance of contract for sale. The Supreme Court was of the view that the persons seeking addition in the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale who were not claiming under the vendor but were claiming adverse to the title of the vendor do not fall in any of the categories enumerated in sub-sections (a) to (e) of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act. During the course of the judgment, Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:-