Civil Appeal Nos. 10940-10941 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 996-997 of 2013). Case: Baluram Vs P. Chellathangam. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal Nos. 10940-10941 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 996-997 of 2013) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: G.S. Mani and R. Sathish, Advs. and For Respondents: Madhurima Mridual, Manoj V. George, Shilpa M. George, Aakash Kamra, Siju Thomas and Alex Joseph, Advs. |
| Judges | T. S. Thakur and A. K. Goel, JJ. |
| Issue | Indian Trusts Act, 1881 - Section 49; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order 1 Rules 10, 10(2); Constitution of India - Article 227 |
| Judgement Date | December 10, 2014 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
A. K. Goel, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been preferred against Orders dated 24th November, 2011 and 18th September, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madras, Bench at Madurai in C.R.P. No. 2610 of 2010 and in Review Application No. 1 of 2012 in C.R.P. No. 2610 of 2010 respectively.
3. The question raised for our consideration is whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Order of the trial Court allowing the prayer of the Appellant to be added as a party in a suit for specific performance filed by Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff.
4. Case of the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 3 of 2007 filed in the Court of District Judge, Kanyakumari, is that K. Jagathees and R. Subbaram Babu @ Subbaram, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively (original Defendants in the suit) acting as trustees of "Subbaiah Paniker Family Welfare Trust" (for short "the Trust") entered into the agreement dated 9th December, 2003 to sell the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff. The price of the property was settled at Rs. 22,000/- per cent. A sum of Rs. 1 lakh was received as advance. The Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the Defendants failed to execute the sale deed even in extended time. When called upon to do so, they took the stand that the sale deed could be executed only if the beneficiaries of the Trust agreed to the sale which was not a valid ground.
5. During pendency of the suit, the Appellant filed I.A. No. 584 of 2008 in O.S. No. 3 of 2007 in the Court of District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, for being impleaded as Defendant, pleading that he will suffer prejudice being beneficiary of the Trust if the sale is effected at a throw away price. According to him, the value of the property was more than Rs. 50,000/- per cent while the proposed sale was for Rs. 22,000/- per cent.
6. The application was opposed by the Plaintiff submitting that the beneficiary was a stranger to the agreement and was not a necessary or proper party.
7. The trial Court accepted the application. It held that the Plaintiff was not a stranger to the subject matter of dispute and was entitled to be impleaded as a party. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Madras High Court in S.D. Joseph and Ors. v. E. Ebinesan and Ors. 2009 (5) CTC p.193 holding as follows:
Every member who is having interest and right should be given an opportunity of being heard and the court must see whether subject matter could be factually...
To continue reading
Request your trial