MAHENDER SINGH JANDLIWALE Vs. CHHAJU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This order will dispose of two petitions bearing Nos. 5721 and 6324 of 2008, as both arise out of same order, passed by the learned court below.

(2.) THE facts have been taken from CR No. 5721 of 2008.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner-vendor submitted that it is a suit for possession by way of specific performance filed by respondent No. 1-vendee against the petitioner-vendor seeking specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell dated 20.11.2006, in which without there being any valid reason, respondent No. 2, his daughter-in-law, has been directed to be substituted in his place. In fact, respondent No. 2 is totally stranger to the agreement to sell, which are subjectmatter of suit. Though the petitioner- vendor is denying even execution of the agreement to sell, even if the same is there, still respondent No. 2 has nothing to do with that agreement. As per the contentions made in the application for being impleaded as plaintiff in the suit, the respondents submitted that during the pendency of the suit after receipt of notice, the petitioner-vendor approached respondent No. 1-vendee for settlement on 9.1.2008 and the terms for sale were revised and the sale deed was to be executed on 10.1.2008 on payment of balance consideration. On the next date, even the documents were got typed but the petitioner-vendor after receiving the balance money fled from the spot. The submission is that all these developments, if any, had taken place after the filing of the suit by respondent No. 1-vendee. There is no privity of contract of the petitioner-vendor and respondent No. 2 as far as the suit originally filed is concerned. Even if the subsequent agreement dated 9.1.2008, as is sought to be claimed by the respondents, is in existence, still the same is an independent cause of action with alleged revised terms, for which any beneficiary therein cannot possibly be impleaded as plaintiff in the present case, as the vendor and the vendee therein still remain the same. In the present suit, if respondent No. 1-vendee is not able to prove the agreement to sell allegedly signed by the petitioner-vendor, the suit will fail. The second alleged agreement will be required to be proved by the vendee therein independently. The additions in the present suit will amount to misjoinder of causes of action. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, 2005(2) RCR(Civil) 691 : JT 2005(4) SC 565, it was submitted that respondent No. 2, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be an interested party who could be impleaded as plaintiff in the suit.