KASTURI versus IYYAMPERUMAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 864 · Decided: 25-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KASTURI 
v. 
IVY AMPERUMAL AND ORS. 
APRIL 25, ·2005 
B 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE, T ARUN CHATTERJEE AND 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
--
I 
Specific Relief Act; Section 19/Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; 0. IR. JO: 
l 
c Suit for specific performance of contract for sale of a property filed by Vendee 
against Vendor-Filing of an application by respondent Nos. I, 4 to I/-
~ 
Stranger to the contract claiming independent title and possession over the 
suit property to join as parties-defendants-Allowed by trial Court-Affirmed 
by High Court -On appeal, Held: In equity as well as in law, the contract 
constitutes rights and also regulates liabilities of the parties-In order to be 
D a necessary party there must exist a right to relief in respect of the controversies 
involved in the proceedings and no effective order could be passed in the 
absence. of such party-Respondents had no direct interest-Effective decree 
could he passed in ·their absence since the property in question was not 
purchased by them from the vendor after the contract was entered int~ln a 
E 
suit for specific performance plaintiff could not be forced to add parties io 
whom he does not want to fight-Thus, Respondents/strangers to the contract 
are neither proper parties nor necessary party-defendants in the .suit-The 
Courts below acted illegally and without jurisdiction in allowing the app/icatiOn 
for addition of parties in the suit. 
F 
Proceedings under the provisions of Specific Relief Act-Addition of 
parties/stranger to the contract-Effect of-Held: Scope of the suit for specific 
performance would be. enlarged by such addition-Jn terms of sub-rule (2) 
Order I Rule I 0, the coµrt cannot allow adjudication of collateral matters so 
as to convert a suit for specific performance. of contract of sale into a 
complicated suit for title between the parties. 
G 
Necessary parties/proper parties-Meaning of 
The question which arose for determination in this appeal was as to 
~ 
..,, 
whether in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of a property 
' . 
initiated by a vendee against the vendor, a stranger/third party to the 
H 
864 
KASTURI v. IYY AMPERUMAL 
865 
contract claiming to have an independent title and possession over the A 
contracted property, is entitled to be added as a party defendant in the 
suit. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court as well as the trial Court had acted B 
illegally in the exercise of their jurisdiction in allowing the application of 
the respondents for their addition as defendants in the suit. (870-C) 
2.1. The provision under second part of Order I Rule IO sub-rule 
(2) of the CPC clearly show that the necessary parties in a suit for specific 
performance of a contract for sale are the parties to the contract or if they C 
are dead their legal representatives as also a person who had purchased 
the contracted property from the vendor. In equity as well as in law, the 
contract constitutes rights and also regulates the liabilities of the parties. 
A purchaser is a necessary party as he would be affected if he had 
purchased with or without notice of the contract, but a person who claims 
adversely to the claim of a vendor is, however, not a necessary party. 
D 
(871-G-H; 872-A) 
2.2. Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act provides relief against 
parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title. The Section 
is exhaustive on the question as to who ar~ the parties against whom a 
contract for specific performance may be enforced. (872-C; 873-A) 
E 
2.3. For deciding the question who is a proper party in a suit for 
specific performance the guiding principle is that the presence of such a 
party is necessary to adjudicate the controversies involved in the suit for 
specific performance of the contract for sale. Thus, the question is to be 
decided keeping in mind the scope of the suit. The question that is to be F 
decided in such a suit is to the enforceability of the contract entered into 
between the parties to the contract. If the person seeking addition is added 
in such a suit, the scope of the suit for specific performance would be 
enlarged and it would be practically converted into a suit for title. 
Therefore, for effective adjudication of the controversies involved in the G 
suit, presence of such parties cannot be said to be necessary at all. 
(873-A-B-C-DI 
Tasker v. Small, 1834 (40) English Report 848 (1886) 2 Ch. 164, 
referred to. 
2.4. The necessary parties ar

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.