JITEN MOTIANI Vs. LALITA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order dtd. 27/2/2025 passed in Civil Original Suit No.267/2024, the learned trial Judge has allowed prayer of respondent Nos.2 and 3 to be impleaded as party in the suit under provisions of Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC read with Sec. 151 CPC.

(2.) The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by the said order and has challenged the same in this writ petition.

(3.) The aforesaid suit was brought by the petitioner Jiten Motiani stating therein that his mother Vanita J Motiani along with Jaya Ramchandani and Smt. Lalita Jain had jointly purchased the suit property and other property through registered sale deed dtd. 22/6/2004. The property is mentioned in para 1 of the plaint. The suit property was agricultural land in village Pal having Original Khasra No.315/1. The Khasra number was renumbered as 315/1 area 6 Bigha 14 Biswa, 315/2 area 9 Bigha and Khasra No.315/3 area 9 Bigha, total 24 Bigha 14 Biswa. The share of the mother of the plaintiff-petitioner in the purchased land was 60% and to that of Jaya Ramchandani and respondent No.1 Lalita Jain 20% each. Defendant No.1 Lalita Jain entered into an agreement to sale her share of 20% in the said property to the father of the petitioner vide agreement dtd. 17/8/2009 on total consideration money of Rs.42,00,000.00. The entire consideration money was paid through cheque and possession of the subject matter of agreement was handed over to the father of the petitioner. On the date of agreement dtd. 17/8/2009 Lalita Jain had executed a power of attorney in favour of the father of the petitioner as father of the petitioner was willing to get the land converted for residential use and to sale by carving out plots out of the same. Since entire consideration money was already paid to Lalita and possession was handed over, the execution of registered sale deed was not insisted for. On 28/5/2023, father of the petitioner namely Late Jaishree Parumal Jai died. Prior to his death he had executed a will in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject matter of agreement as well. As such the plaintiff-petitioner got interest by virtue of the Will as well as for being son of Late Jaishree Parumal Jai. After death of the father of the plaintiff-petitioner, respondent Lalita Jain and her husband became dishonest and they were not willing to execute the sale deed. Hence, the suit was filed for Specific Performance of Contract against Lalita Devi.