RAJESH SAICHAND SHARMA Vs. SUDERSHAN GANGARAM RAJULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A contracts with B for purchasing some property. B defaults. So A sues. In that suit, C, the brother of A, represents A as his power of attorney agent (POA). A few years later, A discharges C from being his POA; he pursues the case independently and gets a decree--not for specific performance but for the return of money. When A wants to withdraw the deposited decretal amount, C, his brother and erstwhile POA, objects. He wants to intervene in the disposed of suit and stake a claim to a part of the decretal amount on the premise that he, too, has contributed to the sale consideration.

(2.) Can C's claim be countenanced? Is such an 'intervention application' maintainable?

(3.) Rajesh Saichand Sharma and Subhash Chandra Saichand Sharma are brothers, now estranged. Rajesh lives in the U.S.A. and Subhash in Mumbai. Initially, Rajesh filed the above suit for specific performance against one Sudarshan Gangaram Rajula. He pleaded that he contracted with Sudarshan to buy a flat and paid a part of the sale consideration. According to him, though he was willing to pay the balance sale consideration and have a regular deed of conveyance in his favour, Sudarshan did not come forward to perform his part of the contract. With that cause of action, Rajesh filed Suit No. 2700 of 2011 before this Court for specific performance. Incidentally, Subhash, his brother, was his power of attorney agent in the Suit.