HARI MOHAN SHARMA & ANR. versus CHARANJEET SINGH REKHI & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 324 · Decided: 16-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
324                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
HARI MOHAN SHARMA & ANR.
v.
CHARANJEET SINGH REKHI & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11029-30 of 2018)
NOVEMBER 16, 2018
[R.F. NARIMAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Party/Parties: Necessary party – Suit for specific performance
– Determination of correct defendants – Issue arose whether one
CS and his wife who are defendant no. 2 & 3 in one group of SLP
and defendant no. 1 & 2 in other group of SLP are persons who do
not purport to be who they say they are – I.As had been filed by two
other CS one belonging to Moradabad and other to Uttarakhand
stating that each one of them are defendant no. 1 and 2 and
defendant no. 2 and 3 respectively in the suits – Single Judge of the
High Court held that a question of mistaken identity cannot be gone
into in a specific performance suit, and that the plaintiff does not
claim anything against the persons who have filed the I.As but only
against one CS, who belongs to Delhi (since deceased), and his
wife MK who is in US – Division Bench set aside the order – On
appeal held: Plaintiff in both the suits for specific performance is
dominus litus and has chosen CS who resides in Delhi (since deceased)
and his wife MK as persons against whom the lis exists – It was
pleaded that the persons mentioned defendant nos. 1 & 2 and
defendant nos. 2 & 3 in the two suits are, in fact, the persons
mentioned in the two I.As – Plaintiff has no lis against such persons
– Thus, the persons in the I.As are neither necessary nor proper
parties in the present adjudication – Order passed by the Division
Bench is set aside and that of the Single Judge of the High Court is
restored.
Sumtibai & Others v. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar
W/o Parasmal Chordia (D) & Ors. [2007] 10 SCR 543
– distinguished.
Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Others (2005) 6 SCC 733
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2007] 10 SCR 543
distinguished
Para 7
(2005) 6 SCC 733
referred to
Para 7
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 324
324
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
325
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11029-
11030 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.07.2014 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO(OS) Nos.213/2013 and 235/2013.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 11031-11033 of 2018.
Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Neelima Tripathi, K. V. Mohan,
Ms. Gunjan Singh, Joydip Bhattacharya, Hitesh Kumar, Lalltaksh Joshi,
Abid Ali Beeran P, M. Qyamuddin, Wajeeh Shafiq, Mukesh K. Verma,
Rajeev Kumar, Manu Parkash Upadhyay, Anis Ahmed Khan, Advs. for
the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. In both these cases, suits for specific performance have been
filed.  The narrow question that arises is whether one Charanjeet Singh
Rekhi and his wife - Manjit Kaur, who are Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 in SLP
(C) Nos. 32725-32726 of 2014 and Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in SLP (C)
Nos. 28958-28960/2014 are persons who do not purport to be who they
say they are.  This arises out of I.As that have been filed by two other
Charanjeet Singh Rekhis’, one belonging to Moradabad and the other
belonging to Uttarakhand, stating that each one of them are Defendant
Nos. 1 & 2 and Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 respectively in these suits, and
considering that it should conclusively be determined as to who the correct
defendants are, they are necessary parties to both specific performance
suits.
3. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi, by judgment
dated 05.03.2013, held that a question of mistaken identity cannot be
gone into in a specific performance suit, as the persons who have filed
the I.As are either necessary or proper parties to the suits for the reason
that the plaintiff does not claim anything against them but only against
one Charanjeet Singh Rekhi, who belongs to Delhi, and who has since
died.  His wife, Manjit Kaur, is no longer in India and resides in the
United States. Both the I.As were, therefore, dismissed.
4. In an appeal filed to the Division Bench, this judgment was
reversed stating:
HARI MOHAN SHARMA & ANR. v. CHARANJEET SINGH
REKHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
326                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
“35.  It is contended that the appellants are not parties to the
contract and therefore, are not necessary parties in a suit for
specific performance of the contract.  In our view, treating the
appellants as separate from Charanjeet Singh Rekhi & Manjit
Kaur Rekhi would be an erroneous assumption as their application
under O
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.