Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit for specific performance of contract. The original suit was filed and the father of the petitioners was initially arrayed as respondent No.1. During the pendency of the suit, the father was alleged to have entered into a compromise and requested deletion of his name from the arraignment of parties. The deletion of the first respondent was effected after his demise. Subsequently, the petitioners, who are the sons of the deceased, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to come on record in place of their father, claiming that they were necessary and proper parties. The trial court dismissed the application, observing that if the petitioners were made parties, disputes would arise between the petitioners and plaintiff No.1 regarding the compromise and a document referred to as Ext-6. The trial court held that such dispute among co-plaintiffs regarding right, title and interest in the suit property would convert the specific performance suit into a regular title suit, which was beyond the scope of the original suit. Consequently, the trial court held that the petitioners were neither necessary nor proper parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The High Court upheld this order on revision. The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court by special leave petition. Their counsel, Shri Sanyal, contended that the father had not signed the relinquishment deed, the signatures appended to it were not his, and the deed was not genuine. It was argued that these questions were required to be considered before the relinquishment deed and compromise memo between other contesting respondents were acted upon, and that in the absence of the petitioners, their share would be adversely affected, prejudicing their right, title and interest in the property. The Supreme Court refused to go into these questions at that stage. The Court noted that the trial court had rightly pointed out that the petitioners claimed to be necessary and proper parties so long as the alleged relinquishment deed said to have been signed by the deceased father was on record. However, the Court held that whether the deed was true, valid, or binding on the petitioners and all related questions could not be gone into in the present suit without converting it into a regular title suit. The Supreme Court found that the courts below were right in holding that the petitioners were not necessary and proper parties and that their remedy lay elsewhere. The special leave petition was dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail of any remedy according to law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Parties - Necessary and Proper Party - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 1 Rule 10 - In a suit for specific performance of contract, persons claiming under a deceased defendant through a disputed relinquishment deed and compromise memo are not necessary or proper parties where their addition would create a dispute among co-plaintiffs regarding title and interest in the suit property and would convert the suit into a regular title suit beyond the scope of the original suit - Trial court correctly declined impleadment and High Court affirmed; Supreme Court held that courts below were right in holding that petitioners are not necessary and proper parties and their remedy lies elsewhere - Held that the validity and binding nature of the relinquishment deed cannot be adjudicated in the present suit (Paras Not mentioned). B) Evidence - Proof of Relinquishment Deed - Genuineness and Validity - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 1 Rule 10 - Where a relinquishment deed purportedly executed by a deceased party is challenged as forged, the genuineness of signatures and validity of the deed are matters to be considered in appropriate proceedings and cannot be gone into in a suit for specific performance without converting it into a title suit - Supreme Court dismissed special leave petition and left it open to the petitioners to avail remedy according to law - Held that the disputed deed may not bind the petitioners but the question of its truth, validity, or binding effect cannot be decided in the present suit (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are necessary and proper parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in a suit for specific performance when their father's name was deleted after death and a relinquishment deed/compromise memo is disputed
Final Decision
Special leave petition dismissed. Courts below were right in holding that the petitioners are not necessary and proper parties; remedy lies elsewhere.
Law Points
- In a suit for specific performance
- persons claiming under a disputed relinquishment deed are not necessary or proper parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC if their addition would convert the suit into a regular title suit
- validity and binding nature of relinquishment deed cannot be adjudicated in the specific performance suit
- remedy lies in separate proceedings
