Subsequent Purchaser/Donee May Be Impleaded As Parties In Suit For Specific Performance To Avoid Multiplicity Of Litigation: Rajasthan HC

Noting that the subsequent purchaser may be allowed to participate in a suit for specific performance of a contract, the Rajasthan High Court has allowed impleading the donor and donee in a gift deed, with regards to the same suit property, executed after the agreement for sale and filing of the suit.

A single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the trial court should have allowed the application made by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The bench sitting at Jaipur also opined that the trial court should have allowed the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of the original suit.

The amendment sought was to challenge the validity of the registered gift deed executed after the contract for the sale of the suit property. The court has allowed the Order 6 Rule 17 application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff along with the application for impleadment.

“…during pendency of the suit, the property in question has been gifted by Durjay Singh in favour of Ms. Pragya Singh on 20.12.2018 by way of executing a registered gift deed and if the aforesaid persons are not allowed to be impleaded as defendants, it would definitely create multiplicity of the proceedings between the interested parties…”, the court said while impleading them as necessary parties in the original suit.

The High Court referred to relevant excerpts in A. Nawab John v. V N Subhramaniyam (2012) and Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr v. Farida Khatoon & Anr, (2005) to hold that it is not rigid that subsequent purchasers of a property shouldn't be impleaded in a suit filed for specific performance of contract.

In Amit Kumar Shaw, the apex court has already opined that if a party has an enforceable legal right in the suit property and such right of his would be affected if he is not added as a party, then the concerned party can be impleaded in the suit.

Referring to Sumti Bai v. Paras Finance Company, (2007), Justice Dhand also added that the position of law in these types of scenarios is clear.

“…it is clear that their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court were of the opinion that there is no absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed, no third person can be impleaded as party to the suit. Their Lordships were also of the opinion that in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings between the parties, the third party should be impleaded as defendant in the lis, pending before the Court”, the court added.

Facts

On 06.03.2008, a registered agreement of sale was executed between the plaintiff/ petitioner and respondents/ defendants 1 to 3 for the sale of the suit property to the former. Later, the registered sale deed of property was not executed by the respondents in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. This resulted in the petitioner/plaintiff filing a suit for specific performance against respondents/defendants 1 to 3. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the suit, a registered gift deed was executed by the paternal uncle of respondent no. 2 and 3 in favour of the daughter of respondent no. 3 on 20.12.2018.

Taking into account the changed circumstances, the petitioner/ plaintiff preferred the aforementioned applications before the trial court, both of which were rejected on 28.05.2002. The trial court recorded a finding of fact that none of the parties in the gift deed were necessary to the suit for specific performance. This order rendered by the trial court was challenged by the petitioner/ plaintiff before the High Court.

Advocates Jai Prakash Singh and Abhimanyu Singh represented the petitioner. Advocate R.K Daga appeared for the respondents.

Case Title: Harish Kumar v. Usha Devi & Ors

Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13835/2022 & S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13674/2022

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 18

Click Here To Read/ Download Order