VIJAY MAMGAIN Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside order dtd. 12/7/2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the petitioner as a party in suit titled as 'Ram Singh and another versus Chanderma Mamgain and others'.

(2.) Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the revision petition are that a civil suit was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs against respondent Nos.3 to 5 i.e. defendant Nos.1 to 3 for specific performance of agreement to sell dtd. 8/7/2010, allegedly executed by respondent No.3/defendant No.1 in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. plaintiffs in respect of 50% share in House No.3389 Sector 27-D, Chandigarh.

(3.) The petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC praying to be impleaded as defendant in the aforementioned civil suit on the ground that the house in question had been purchased by him way back in the year 2002 by making payment exclusively from his own funds and by raising loan from the bank and in order to avoid tax related problems and keeping in view relations between the parties, sale deed in respect of 50% share in the house in question was got executed by the petitioner in the name of respondent No.3 defendant No.1 i.e. his wife, otherwise his wife was illiterate and had no independent source of income nor had contributed any money for purchasing the said house. Therefore, she was only a benami owner of the suit property. Petitioner had also purchased another property at Rishikesh in the name of respondent No.3 defendant No.1 and entire funds for purchase of the same were paid for by him and respondent No.3 defendant No.1 was only a name lender. Subsequently, relations between the parties got strained and respondent No.3 defendant No.1 tried to sell 50% share in the house in question to one Narinder Singh Cheema and when the petitioner came to know about the aforementioned fact, he filed a suit for declaration for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction against respondent No.3 defendant No.1 and in the said suit, while allowing the application for interim injunction, respondent No.3 defendant No.1 was restrained from alienating the 50% share to any other person. Eventually, the matter was compromised and respondent No.3 defendant No.1 admitted the claim of the petitioner with regard to the ownership in respect of 100% share including 50% share which was purchased by the petitioner in the name of respondent No.3 defendant No.1 and also agreed to get the same transferred in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner fulfilled the terms of the compromise and all cases pending between the parties were withdrawn in terms of compromise deed dtd. 26/4/2010 but respondent No.3 defendant No.1 failed to abide by the terms and conditions of compromise deed dtd. 26/4/2010 and did not get transferred 50% share in the house in question in the name of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that respondent No.3 defendant No.1 was negotiating with somebody else for sale of 50% share in the house in question. Thereupon, the petitioner filed another suit for declaration, mandatory injunction as well as permanent injunction against respondent No.3 defendant No.1, which is pending adjudication before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh and in the said suit also temporary injunction had been granted and respondent No.3 defendant No.1 had been restrained from alienating 50% share to any other person.