AMAN BEHAL Vs. ARUNA KANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question, in this revision petition from an order of the trial Court dismissing the application of the petitioner under O.1, R.10 of the Civil P. C. (for short 'the Code'), is as to whether in a suit for specific performance by the purchaser against the Karta of a family the coparcener is a necessary party to the suit or one without he being there, the question arising in the suit for specific performance cannot be effectively or completely adjudicated upon.

(2.) The aforementioned question has to be answered in the light of the facts which can be stated thus. One Nand Kishore Behl purchased a plot No. 82 located in Civil Lines, Ludhiana, on 14th Oct., 1944. He died in the year 1954 leaving behind five sons namely, Jagdish Lal, Kanti Kumar, Saish Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Baldev Krishan. Baldev Krishan, out of them separated his share from the Hindu Undivided family in question on 1st April, 1976. The memorandum of the partition dt. 5th April, 1976 accorded to him inter alia 1/5th share in the said plot No. 82. Baldev Krishan by two separate agreements executed on 24th April, 1979 sold out his 1/5th share in the said plot to Aruna Kansal and her husband Satish Kumar for a total consideration of Rs. 30,000/-, each. He at that time received Rs. 4000/- each as earnest money. On 12th Jan., 1981, he executed another set of agreements under which he received the entire sale amount and delivered the possession to the plaintiff-vendees. Thereafter when he failed to execute the sale deeds, two separate suits for specific performance were launched against Baldev Krishan. On 14th June, 1983, Aman Behl son of Baldev Krishan filed application in each suit under O.1, R.10 of the Code seeking to be impleaded as defendant thereto. These applications were dismissed by the trial Court. In one case, the revision has become time barred and, therefore, no revision has been filed. So it is only in the other suit No. 107 of 1983, which was filed by Aruna Kansal, that the revision petition challenging the order has been filed by Aman Behl in this Court.

(3.) Mr. R.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate, has convassed that the trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction in not allowing the application and adding the petitioner as defendant to the suit. Sub-rule (2) of R.10 of O.1 of the Code, which is relevant to the controversy is in the following terms :