MULCHAND K RANKA Vs. HITESH C JHAVERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicants have taken out this Chamber Summons for impleading themselves as party to Suit No.2674 of 2006 claiming to be necessary party. The Plaintiffs have filed the suit for seeking specific performance of the Agreement dated 12 th January, 1991 and in the alternative, for damages to the tune of Rs.27 crores together with interest. It is case of the Applicant that Plaintiff No.1 is the brother of the Applicants and all brothers belong to Undivided Joint Hindu family. It is his case that his father late Kaluchand Hanjarimal Ranka had initially started the business of watch repairing and subsequently he closed down the said business and had ventured into business of construction and development of properties. It is his case that several properties in and around Mumbai came to be developed jointly. It is his case that till date, no partition oral or written by metes and bounds have taken place and all the business are carried out for the joint Hindu family of the Applicants and Plaintiffs and their mother Devubai K.Ranka. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that though Plaintiffs had entered into an agreement with the Defendant, the Applicants who are also entitled to share in it, deals into the business of the Hindu Joint Undivided Family. It is contended by the Applicants that they are proper and necessary party to the suit and as such are required to be joined as parties to the suit. The Applicants also relied upon the affidavit dated 13 th April, 2010 filed by the mother of the Applicants and Plaintiff No.1 supporting the Applicants.

(2.) This Chamber Summon has been vehemently opposed by the Plaintiffs and other Defendants. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs state that the Applicants are neither necessary nor property parties to the suit. The Plaintiffs also denied the allegations of the Applicant that the suit property or any part thereof were part of Joint Hindu Undivided Family. The Plaintiffs denied that the Applicants have any right, title or interest of whatever manner in the suit property.

(3.) The Learned Counsel appearing for Defendant Nos. 1A to 1E and for Defendant No.2 contended that Applicants are attempting to delay the hearing of the suit and the application is false and frivolous. The Defendants also contended that the Applicant was neither necessary nor property required to be impleaded as the Defendants to the suit. The Plaintiffs as well as the Defendants also contended that after filing of this Chamber Summons, the Plaintiffs have already filed separate suit being No. 261 of 2011 against the Plaintiffs herein and the Defendants for various reliefs. According to the Plaintiffs herein and the Defendants, the allegations made in the Chamber Summons that the suit property is HUF property and that the Applicants have share in the same is also subject matter of the said suit No. 261 of 2011 and therefore on this ground also the Chamber Summons is liable to be dismissed.