JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The revision petition canvasses for an order of
impleadment at the instance of a third party in a suit for
specific performance that he held an agreement of sale earlier
in point of time and he should be impleaded. In this case, he
has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement in his
favour and the same is pending. While an earlier agreement
holder can seek for the subsequent holder of interest as a party
in view of the Section 19 of the Specific Performance Act that a
subsequent purchaser or a person, who have/owns interest of
specific transaction, would require to be added to secure a
binding degree, there is no requirement for an agreement
holder to take notice of any earlier transaction said to have
been made by the vendor. He takes his risk and would set only
such right as his vendor had. For the same reason, even a
person, who claims that he held an earlier agreement, cannot
be brought as a party in a specific performance suit.
(2.)It is axiomatic that a suit for specific performance is
not a suit on title. The Court shall not complicate itself by
adjudicating on title relating to the property which was the
subject of an agreement of sale. The plaintiff who proceeds in
an agreement will be able to obtain an enforcement whatever
defect with the title that the vendor had. It is also possible for
the plaintiff to seek for revocation of his own agreement and
seek for damages. However, he need not allow a third party,
who holds an earlier agreement, to be brought on record and
for a Court to adjudicate which agreement will prevail. A
Court deciding a claim for specific performance cannot
adjudicate on the enforcement of an earlier agreement. To that
extent it will cause an embarrassment in trial and will judge an
issue which is the subject of independent adjudication in a suit
said to have been filed by the petitioner himself for enforcement
of the same. By his impleadment, he is trying to make possible
two independent adjudications; one in his own suit for specific
performance which he claims to have file and second in a suit
for a specific performance filed at the instance of the plaintiff.
It shall also result in conflict of judgments.
(3.)The best that the plaintiff can plead is to apply to a
competent Court for consideration of both the suits filed for
enforcement of specific performance in respect of same property
against the same vendor simultaneously to avoid conflict in
views. The counsel appearing for the respondents 1and 2
points out that there was a prayer for consolidation of two suits
by the petitioner himself but later it was not pressed. The
petitioner will not be barred from moving yet another
application. If such application is moved, the Court shall
consolidate both the suits and take the suits simultaneously
but deal with judgments separately.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.