Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court declining to implead the appellants under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit was instituted by the first respondent, a cooperative housing society, against the second respondent (a builder) and the third respondent (the municipal corporation). The society claimed to be the lessee of a plot of land under an indenture of lease dated 2 July 1963. The owners of the property executed an agreement to sell in favour of the builder on 3 March 1994, followed by a deed of conveyance dated 6 September 1994, which was subject to the lease. The society contended that the area actually leased was 1500 square yards as per the lease deed, but the plan annexed to the deed showed a different boundary due to a gradient, and the builder was attempting to encroach upon the leased area. The appellants, who were the original lessors, sought impleadment on the ground that they were necessary parties as the dispute involved the interpretation of the lease deed executed by them. The Single Judge rejected the application. On appeal, the Division Bench held that the appellants were not necessary or proper parties. The court reasoned that the appellants had already transferred their reversionary interest to the builder and had no subsisting right in the property. The dispute between the society and the builder regarding the area of the leased land could be effectively adjudicated without the appellants' presence, as it involved interpretation of the lease deed and the plan. The court also noted that the appellants' interest, if any, was only as witnesses, and they could be summoned as such if needed. The appeal was dismissed, and the notice of motion was disposed of.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 - Necessary and Proper Party - Impleadment - The court held that a person is a necessary party only if his presence is essential for the complete and effective adjudication of the dispute and if no effective decree can be passed in his absence. A proper party is one whose presence is necessary to enable the court to effectuate and completely adjudicate upon the matters involved in the suit. The appellants, being lessors who had already transferred their reversionary interest, were not necessary or proper parties to the suit between the lessee and the purchaser of the reversion. (Paras 5-10) B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 8 - Merger of Leasehold and Reversion - The court noted that upon conveyance of the reversion to the defendant, the lessors' interest in the property ceased, and they had no subsisting right or interest in the subject matter of the suit. (Para 6) C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 91 - Exclusion of Oral Evidence - The court observed that the lease deed and the plan annexed thereto constitute the entire contract, and the dispute regarding the area of the leased land is a matter of interpretation of the document, which can be decided without the presence of the lessors. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants, who are lessors of the suit property, are necessary or proper parties to a suit filed by the lessee cooperative housing society against the purchaser of the reversion and the municipal corporation, seeking declarations regarding the area of the leased land and challenging construction activities.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge refusing impleadment is upheld. Notice of Motion No.615 of 2010 is disposed of.
Law Points
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- necessary party
- proper party
- impleadment
- leasehold rights
- conveyance subject to lease
- boundary dispute
- plan annexed to deed
