Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a company, purchased property from the legal representatives of one Kishanlal Jaiswal. The property originally belonged to Hanumantrao, who bequeathed it to Rangrao, and thereafter it passed through sales and family settlements to Kishanlal's legal representatives. In 2006, the petitioner purchased the property. Respondent No.1 filed Special Civil Suit No. 101 of 2013 claiming ownership through intestate succession from Hanumantrao, seeking declaration of title and cancellation of the sale deed. He arrayed the Jaiswal legal representatives as defendants 1 to 20 and the petitioner as defendant 21. A compromise was reached between respondent No.1 and the petitioner. When the compromise was presented for a decree, respondent No.3 applied for impleadment, claiming to be an agreement purchaser from respondent No.1. The Civil Judge Senior Division allowed the impleadment by order dated 19 November 2015. The petitioner challenged this order by way of the present writ petition. The High Court, after hearing the parties, set aside the trial court's order. The court held that the plaintiff is dominus litis and has the right to choose his opponents; respondent No.3 was neither a necessary nor a proper party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC. She was a complete stranger to the title dispute and had no interest in the question whether Jaiswals had title and whether the sale to petitioner was valid. Her claim as an agreement purchaser was independent and subject to her own pending suit for specific performance. The court distinguished the judgment in Baluram v. P. Chellathangam, noting that the present suit was for declaration, not specific performance. The court also held that a stranger cannot challenge a compromise decree and the bar under Order 23 Rule 3A does not apply to strangers. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed and the impleadment application dismissed. No order as to costs. The order was stayed for four weeks on the application of respondent No.3.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Joinder of Parties - Necessary and Proper Party Distinction - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 1 Rule 10(2) - The court explained that a necessary party is one without whom no decree can be passed, while a proper party is one whose presence is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. Held, on facts, the applicant (respondent No.3) was neither necessary nor proper as she was a stranger to the impugned sale deed and had no direct interest in the title dispute (Paras 5-8). B) Civil Procedure - Dominus Litis Principle - Plaintiff's Right to Choose Opponents - The court reiterated that the plaintiff being dominus litis always has the option to choose his opponents and cannot ordinarily be compelled to sue a person against whom he seeks no relief. The court held that exceptions under Order 1 Rule 10(2) did not apply to this case (Para 5). C) Property Law - Impleadment of Agreement Purchaser - Suit for Declaration of Title Not Suit for Specific Performance - The court distinguished Baluram v. P. Chellathangam, (2010) 7 SCC 417, noting that the principles governing impleadment in specific performance suits do not apply to suits for declaration of title and cancellation of sale deed. Held, respondent No.3, being an agreement purchaser from the plaintiff, had no right to challenge the transfer between defendants (Paras 8-9). D) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Rights of a Stranger - Order 23 Rule 3A CPC - The court held that a stranger to a suit cannot file an application to challenge a compromise decree, as the bar under Order 23 Rule 3A applies only to parties to the suit. Reliance placed on Khalil Haji Bholumiya Salar v. Praveen Sayyedudin, 2013(6) Bom.C.R. 841 (Para 10). E) Civil Procedure - Writ Petition Against Impleadment Order - Quashing and Setting Aside - The High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, quashed the trial court's order allowing impleadment, holding it unsustainable, and dismissed the application for impleadment (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, erred in allowing the application filed by respondent No.3 for impleadment as a defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 101 of 2013 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; and whether respondent No.3 was a necessary or proper party to that suit.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19 November 2015 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, is quashed and set aside. The application for impleadment (Exh. No. 52) in Special Civil Suit No. 101 of 2013 is dismissed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. The order is stayed for four weeks on the application of respondent No.3.
Law Points
- dominus litis
- necessary party
- proper party
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- impleadment in declaratory suit
- agreement purchaser not proper party
- compromise decree and strangers
- plaintiff's choice to sue
