BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19/11/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA C.R.P.(PD)MD.No.1656 of 2007 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2007 Alagar ... Petitioner/Petitioner/ Proposed 5th defendant Vs 1.Sakthivel ... Respondent/1st Respondent/Plaintiff 2.Chandrasekaran 3.Devi 4.Dhanalakshmi 5.Chellamuthu ... Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants Prayer Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair order and decreetal order of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul dated 17-07-2007, made in I.A.No.55 of 2007 in O.S.No.274 of 2004. !For Petitioner ... Mr.Ramesh for Mr.V.Raghavachari ^For Respondents... Mr.P.Vairava Sundaram for R1 No Appearance for R2 to R5. * * * * * :ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition is directed against the decree-holder
by order dated 17.07.2007, passed by the learned Principal District Munsif,
Dindigul in I.A.No.55 of 2007 in O.S.No.274 of 2004 seeking to implead the civil
revision petitioner as the fifth defendant in the suit on the ground that he had
entered into a sale agreement with the second respondent on 22.12.1997, by
paying an amount of Rs.24,000/- and Rs.23,000/- towards advance for Plot Nos. 5
and 6. Subsequent to the above transaction, the revision petitioner was put in
possession of the land, for which, the suit was filed for specific performance.
2. It was further contended by the revision petitioner that the petitioner
after paying the above mentioned amounts towards the cost of plot Nos.5 and 6
has also constructed a house in the said property, therefore, the petitioner
should be impleaded as one of the necessary parties in the suit filed by the
plaintiff, namely, the first respondent herein. It was also further contended
that for any reason, the suit for specific performance decree in favour of the
plaintiff, who is arrayed as a first respondent herein and in order to avoid
further multiplicity of proceedings, it is fair and just to implead the
petitioner as fifth defendant in the pending suit for specific performance. On
that basis, he prayed for allowing the impleadment application by setting aside
the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif.
3.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff/first
respondent, submitted that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the
first defendant in pursuant to the agreement dated 28.06.1999. As per the
agreement, the first defendant agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff/first respondent herein on payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the suit
land. Subsequent to the agreement dated 28.06.1999, out of Rs.1,00,000/- the
plaintiff/first respondent herein admittedly paid Rs.40,000/- and only when the
plaintiff was about to make a balance of Rs.60,000/-, the first defendant in the
suit evaded from receiving the above said amount; as a result, the plaintiff was
constrained to file the suit for specific performance of the contract between
the plaintiff and defendant. Therefore, it was contended that except as per
Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, no one else can claim any right in a
suit property. The revision petitioner is only an agreement holder even
according to him and without impleading the third party before the civil Court,
the petitioner can mark his sale agreement without impleading the subsequent
purchaser.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/1st respondent herein
by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kasturi Vs.
Iyyamperumal and Others ((2005) 6 SCC 733) contended that in a suit for specific
performance of a contract for sale, the lis between the plaintiff and the
defendants alone can be gone into and therefore, it is not open to the Court to
decide whether the strangers have acquired any title and possession of the
contracted property as that would not be germane for decision in the suit for
specific performance of the contract for sale, that is to say, in a suit for
specific performance of the contract for sale, the controversy to be decided
raised by the parties can only be adjudicated upon, and in such a lis, the Court
cannot decide the question of title and possession of the strangers relating to
the contracted property.
5. In the above said judgment, as it has been held that the strangers to
the contract are neither necessary nor proper parties and therefore, not
entitled to join as party-defendants in the suit for specific performance of
contract for sale, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, which
holds that the petition to implead the third party is one of the tactics adopted
by the 1st defendant. Further, the alleged agreement dated 22.12.1997 reached
between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein also has not been till date
registered.
6.In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to allow the
prayer made by the petitioner in the present civil revision petition and
accordingly, this Court, finding no merits in the civil revision petition,
dismisses the same. Since the matter is pending for quite long time i.e., for
the last six years, this Court directs the trial Court to dispose of the suit
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P(MD)No.1 of 2007 is also
dismissed.
gsr
TO
The Principal District Munsif Court,
Dindigul.