SADHU BEHERA Vs. KRISHNA CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question for decision in this case is whether in a suit for a specific performance of a contract for sale, instituted by a purchaser against the vendor, a stranger to the contract, who contending that the contracted property is a joint family property, of which he is also the co-owner, wants to intervene in the suit, is entitled to be added as a party. The question having been answered in the negative by the Court below, the interveners have filed this revision petition challenging the order. The facts material for the purpose of the present proceeding are that the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed Title Suit No. 64 of 1981 for a decree of specific performance of a contract for sale of the lands described in the schedule to the plaint. In the plaint they alleged inter alia that opposite parties 3 to 5 (defendants 1 to 3) constituted a joint family with the opposite party No. 3 (defendant No. 1) as Karta. In his capacity as Karta of the family the said defendant executed an agreement for sale of the case land in favour of the plaintiffs on 15-4-1978. They further alleged that the case land originally belonged to one Pyran Bibi who transferred the same in favour of opposite party No. 3 and his cousins, Sadhu, Radhu and Jadu, the petitioners in the revision petition, by a permanent lease deed dated 30-6-1944. Though the cousins of opposite party No. 3 were shown to be the joint purchasers yet none of them actually possessed the property. The plaintiff No. 1 who was originally inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of the case house contracted with defendant No. 1 for purchase of the same and continued to be in peaceful possession of the property on the basis of the agreement and delivery of possession. The said defendant No. 1 having failed to complete the sale, the suit for specific performance of a contract for sale was filed.

(2.) During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application for being impleaded as defendants in the suit alleging inter alia that on the plaintiffs' own showing they are the co-owners in respect of the suit property. A proceeding under the Orissa House Rent Control Act was instituted by them since the plaintiff defaulted in payment of rent and the petitioners require the case house for their own occupation. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff has managed to win over the defendant No. 1 and the two in collusion with each other are trying to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate rights in order to avoid multiplicity of proceeding the petitioners pleaded that they should be impleaded as defendants in the suit. As already stated the Court below rejected the application.

(3.) The position is well settled that a person is a necessary party if in his absence, no effective decree can be passed. He is a proper party if his presence is necessary for effectual and complete adjudication. This is the principle embodied in O.1, R.10(2), C.P.C. which runs as follows : -