JAIPRAKASH SHANKARRAO PISAL Vs. VILAS GANPAT DONGRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application arises out of an order passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Satara rejecting the application of the present petitioner to be joined as a party-defendant to the suit filed by present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter the plaintiffs) against the remaining respondents for specific performance of an agreement of sale allegedly executed by respondent No. 3 (hereinafter defendant No. 1) in favour of the plaintiffs. I am of the view that not only that the learned Judge was not justified in rejecting the petitioners application for being joined as a party defendant to the suit, but in these days when the courts must find as many ways and means as possible for curtailing the prolixity of litigations, in fact the Court itself should have required the plaintiffs to implead the present petitioner and also his brother Vijaysingh as party-defendant to the suit so as to effectuate complete adjudication of all the questions involved in the suit. To my mind the application made by the present petitioner was in fact in the interest of the plaintiffs themselves and they should have in fact welcome the application and should have themselves invoked the Court to implead them as parties; but astonishingly, not only in the lower Court but also before me the application was most strenuously opposed on behalf of the plaintiff. In normal circumstances I would not have given an elaborate judgment in such a case, because in a number of similar matters I had the occasion to pass an order directing a person, such as the petitioner, to be impleaded in the suit. But since the petitioners application was opposed most stoutly before me and since I am required to discuss the case-law on this point as well as the first principles relating to the same, I am giving an elaborate judgment after mentioning all the relevant facts pertaining to the litigation.

(2.) For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to with respect to their positions in the trial Court as plaintiffs, defendant, etc. The suit property consists of three plots of land at Wai, District Satara. According to the plaintiff, the property belongs to Shankar-defendant No. 1 Defendant No. 2 is his daughter. According to the plaintiffs by an agreement dated 7-9-1981 defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the suit properties to the plaintiffs for the total price of Rs. 40,000/-. A sum of Rs. 2,500/-, was allegedly paid by the plaintiffs in cash and possession of the suit properties (as mentioned in para 1 of the plaint) was allegedly delivered to the plaintiffs by defendant No. 1 as and by way of part performance. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No. 2 signed the said agreement as a consenting party. Further, according to the plaintiffs, the sale was to be executed within one year and three months upon receipt of the balance of the amount. The plaintiffs contend that they are ready and willing to pay the balance of the amount, but that the defendants are trying to back out from the agreement. Further it is alleged in paragraph 6 of the plaint that the properties come to be transferred to defendant No. 8. Some allegation of conspiracy is made in paragraph 6 but it is not mentioned as to who transferred the property to defendant No. 3 and what kind of conspiracy existed, amongst the various defendants. I tried to verify the correct pleadings by examining the plaint which is in Marathi; but the confusion existing in the original Marathi version is co-extensive with the confusion reflected in its English translation, copy of which is included in the paper book filed in this Court. The significance of this airy nature of the averments in the plaint may have to be considered by the trial Court. The grievance of the plaintiffs in the remaining paras of the plaints is that they called upon all the four defendants to execute the sale-deed in their favour and since the defendants refused to oblige, they were required to file the suit for specific performance against all of them. In the plaint it is mentioned that the plaintiffs were already in possession and prayer is made that the plaintiffs possession may be confirmed, whatever it may mean.

(3.) All the four defendants have filed a common written statement, Exh. 29. In the first place, they denied the execution of a valid agreement dated 7-9-1981 in favour of the plaintiffs. It is specifically alleged in para 6 of the said written statement that the said agreement dated 7-9-1981 was taken by the plaintiffs from defendant No. 1 by cheating him while he was drunk. It is denied that any consideration was paid towards the said agreement. Moreover, it is specifically stated in the said written statement that defendant No. 1 was getting attacks of lunacy and was in fact in the hospital at Yerawada at some previous times. It is stated that he has not fully recovered from the attack of lunacy and that he gets attacks of lunacy even today. It is mentioned in paragraph 8 of the written statement that during one of such attacks, while defendant No. 1 was under the influence of drink, the plaintiffs got the alleged agreement of sale executed from him and hence the agreement was void and illegal.