LexBALURAM versus P. CHELLATHANGAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 291 BAL URAM A v. P. CHELLATHANGAM & ORS. (CivilAppeal Nos.10940-10941 of2014) B DECEMBER 10, 2014 [T. S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 - Or. 1, r. 10 - c lmpleadment as a party in a suit for specific performance - Agreement to sell trust property by trustees in favour of plaintiff - Application for impleadment by appellant as defendant on the ground that he would suffer prejudice being beneficiary of the Trust if the sale is effected at the price D agreed - Trial court allowed the application holding that the appellant was not a stranger to tf1e subject matter of the dispute and was entitled to be impleaded as a party"- High Court set aside the order of trial court on the ground that the appellant was not a necessary/proper party- Held: Appellant E . being beneficiary of the trust property cannot be held to be stranger - Trial court was justified in impeading him as a party- TrustsAct, 1882. All~wing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Admittedly, the appellant is a beneficiary of the Trust and under the provisions of the Trusts Act, the Trustee has to act reasonably in exercise of his right F of alienation under the terms of the trust deed. No doubt, G it may be permissible for the appellant to file a separate suit, as suggested by Respondent No.1, but the beneficiary could certainly be held to be a proper party. There is no valid reason to decline his prayer to be H 291 292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C P. A impleaded as a party to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Order I Rule 10(2), CPC enables, the Court to add a necessary or proper party so as to "effectually and completely adjudicate· upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit". In the present case, the appellant B could not be held to be a stranger being beneficiary of the Trust property. The trial Court was justified in impleading him as a party. The High Court erred in interfering with the order of the trial Court. [Paras 13 and 15)[296-A-C; 299-C] c D E F Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd. 2010 (7) SCC 417: 2010 (7) SCR 790 - relied on. S. D. Joseph and Ors. v. E. Ebinesan and Ors. 2009 (5) CTC 193; Bharat Karasor1das. Thakur ys. Kiran Cosntruction Co. & Ors. 2008 (13) SCC 658 : 2008 (6) SCR 59-- referred to. Case Law Reference: 2009 (5) CTC p. 193 referred to Para 7 2008 (6) SCR 59 referred to Para 8 2010 (7) SCR 790 relied on Para 11 CIVILAPPELLA_1_E JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 10940--10941 of2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2011 and 18-09-2012 of the High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in G C.R.P. No. 2610 of 2010 and Review Application (MO) No. 1 of 2012 in C.R.P. No. 2610 of 2010 respectively. G. S. Mani, R. Sathish for the Appellant. H BAL URAM v. P. CHELLATHANGAM & ORS. 293 Ms. Madhurima Mridual, Manoj V. George, Ms. Shilpa A M. George, Aakash Kamra, Siju Thomas, Alex Joseph for the Respondents. · The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. B 2. These app~als 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 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 Respon-dent D 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 E 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 F 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 G to the sale which was not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.