SUDHIR YADAV Vs. RADHEY SHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been made by certain applicants to be impleaded as defendants. However, the entire application does not disclose as to who were the applicants and who wanted to be impleaded as a defendants. The application is accompanied by an affidavit of one Ms. Babita, claiming to be mother and natural guardian of the applicants. She had not given the names of the applicants. The application is liable to be dismissed for want of proper particulars and is hereby dismissed. IA No. 8287/2007

(2.) THIS application is under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC wherein a prayer has been made that the applicants may be allowed to be impleaded as defendants. The application is signed by 3 persons as applicants and is accompanied by affidavit of one Mr. Sanjay. The names of the persons sought to be impleaded as defendants have not been disclosed in the entire application. However from the affidavit one can make out that one of the applicants is Mr. Sanjay. The applicants want to be impleaded on the ground that under a family settlement dated 22nd August, 2004, the share of defendant no. 3 (1/8th share in the total land) was further sub divided among 3 applicants and defendant no. 3 and each of them became owner of 1/32th share and defendant no. 3 was no more owner of 1/8th share, therefore the 3 applicants were necessary parties to the suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant no. 3 for specific performance of the agreement to sell.

(3.) THE agreement to sell relied upon by the plaintif is dated 10th october, 2006. In the agreement to sell, defendant no. 3 is one of the signatories. There is no mention of any family settlement and defendant no. 3 has been stated to be owner of 1/8th share. The alleged family settlement relied upon by the applicant is an unregistered family settlement, only a photo copy of which has been placed on record. Prior to filing of the suit, the plaintiff had also served a notice on defendant no. 3 and another defendants. Even in reply to notice, there is no mention of a family settlement between the family and defendant no. 3. It is obvious that this plea of family settlement has been invented later on after the filing of this suit. I consider that the applicants cannot be added as parties to a suit for specific performance of an agreement between the plaintiff and other defendants including defendnat no. 3. Family members of defendant no. 3 cannot be impleaded as a party on the basis of an alleged family settlement. They are neither necessary party nor proper party, neither their impleadment is necessary for adjudication of the issues between the parties. The application is hereby dismissed. IA No. 7756/2009