Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court dismissed a chamber summons filed by M/s Space Developer, a registered partnership firm, seeking impleadment as a party defendant in Suit No.396 of 2006. The suit was filed by Adarsh Water Parks & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. against the executors and trustees of the Will of Sir Mohammed Yusuf Knot, seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 16 August 2005 for sale of properties including CTS No.354, 354/1 to 56, 355, 355/1 to 17 of village Kanjur, Taluka Kurla, Bhandup (W), Mumbai. The applicants claimed to have acquired right, title and interest in part of the suit property admeasuring about 4934.10 sq. meters from Eric Nicholas D'mello and others by a registered development agreement dated 22 April 2008, and had obtained possession and a No Objection Certificate from the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for redevelopment under DC Regulation 33(10). They contended that a status quo order passed by the court in the suit prevented them from proceeding with redevelopment. The court held that the applicants had no right, title or interest in the suit property at the time of the agreement in 2005, and their claim arose only in 2008, after the suit was filed. The court reasoned that in a suit for specific performance, only parties to the agreement or persons claiming through them are necessary parties, and a subsequent purchaser or developer is not entitled to be impleaded as the decree would bind them. The court dismissed the chamber summons, noting that the applicants' remedy, if any, lies elsewhere.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 - Impleadment - Necessary and Proper Party - In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, a person who claims to have acquired right, title and interest in the suit property after the filing of the suit is not a necessary or proper party unless he claims any right in the property at the time of the agreement. The applicant's claim based on a subsequent development agreement and slum rehabilitation scheme does not entitle him to be impleaded as he has no subsisting right, title or interest in the suit property. (Paras 1-6)
B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 15 - Specific Performance - Subsequent Purchaser - A subsequent purchaser or developer who acquires interest after the suit is filed is not entitled to be impleaded in a suit for specific performance as the decree would bind him. The applicant's remedy lies elsewhere. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicants, who claim to have acquired right, title and interest in part of the suit property after the filing of the suit, are entitled to be impleaded as party defendants in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale.
Final Decision
Chamber Summons No.169 of 2013 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- impleadment
- necessary party
- proper party
- specific performance
- right title interest
- subsequent purchaser
- development agreement
- slum rehabilitation
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (09) 51
Chamber Summons No.169 of 2013 in Suit No.396 of 2006
Mr Z. Behramkamdin a/w Soma Singh, Vidya Nair i/b M/s Vimal & Co. for Applicant/Defendant; Mr R. K. Agarwal for the plaintiff; Mr Chirag Shah i/b J. J. Shah for defendant No.2
Adarsh Water Parks & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Chamber summons for impleadment as party defendant in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale.
Remedy Sought
Applicants sought to be impleaded as party defendants in Suit No.396 of 2006.
Filing Reason
Applicants claimed to have acquired right, title and interest in part of the suit property after the suit was filed, and a status quo order prevented their redevelopment.
Issues
Whether the applicants are necessary or proper parties to the suit for specific performance.
Whether the applicants have any subsisting right, title or interest in the suit property at the time of the agreement.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants argued that they have acquired right, title and interest in part of the suit property by a registered development agreement dated 22 April 2008 and are in possession, and the status quo order affects their redevelopment.
Plaintiffs opposed the impleadment, contending that the applicants have no right, title or interest in the suit property at the time of the agreement and are not necessary parties.
Ratio Decidendi
In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, only parties to the agreement or persons claiming through them are necessary parties. A person who acquires interest after the suit is filed is not entitled to be impleaded as the decree would bind him. The applicant's claim based on a subsequent development agreement does not confer any right to be impleaded.
Judgment Excerpts
By this chamber summons, applicants seek their impleadment as party defendant in a suit.
It is the case of the applicants that in respect of part of the property which is subject matter of the suit... applicants have acquired right, title and interest... by a registered development agreement dated 22 April 2008.
In my view, the applicants have no right, title or interest in the suit property at the time of the agreement in 2005. Their claim arose only in 2008, after the suit was filed.
In a suit for specific performance, only parties to the agreement or persons claiming through them are necessary parties. A subsequent purchaser or developer is not entitled to be impleaded as the decree would bind them.
Procedural History
Suit No.396 of 2006 was filed by Adarsh Water Parks & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. for specific performance of an agreement dated 16 August 2005. On 23 December 2011, applicants received a letter from Slum Rehabilitation Authority regarding a status quo order. Applicants filed Chamber Summons No.169 of 2013 seeking impleadment. The chamber summons was heard and dismissed on 20 September 2013.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 1 Rule 10
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 15
