LexTHOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. versus NANAK BUILDERS & INVESTORS P. LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 2 S.C.R. 74 THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. v. NANAK BUILDERS & INVESTORS P. LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1518 of 2013) FEBRUARY 21, 2013 [T.S. THAKUR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: c 0. 1, r.10, 0.22, r.10 - Suit for specific performance of contract - During pendency of the suit defendant transferring the property - Application by appellant-transferee for impleadment as defendant - HELD: Appellant entered into a clandestine transaction with the defendants and got the 0 property transferred in its favour - Therefore, the appellant cannot be held to be a bonafide purchaser, without notice - It is true that the application which the appellant made was only under 0. I r.10 CPC but the enabling provision of 0.22, r. 10 CPC could always be invoked if the fact situation so E demanded - In the facts and circumstances of the case and also for the ends of justice, the appellant is to be added as party-defendant in the suit -Specific Relief Act, 1963- s. 19 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s.52 - Doctrine of /is pendens. F The plaintiff-respondent no. 1 filed a suit on 1.11.1991 against the defendants-respondents for specific performance of the agreement dated 29.5.1986, whereunder the defendants had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff-respondent no. 1. Appearance G was put on behalf of the defendants and on the basis of the statement made on their behalf court on 4.11.1991 passed an interim order not to alienate the suit property. However, between 31.1.2001 and 3.4.2001 five sale deeds were executed by the defendants in favour of the H 74 - THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. v. NANAK 75 BUILDERS & INVESTORS P.L TD. appellant. On the basis of these sale deeds the appellant A moved an application under 0.1, r.10. CPC, for impleadment as defendant in the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1. The Single Judge of the High Court rejected the application. The FAO filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the B Division Bench of the High Court. In the instant appeal, the question for consideration before the Court was: "whether the appellant who is the transferee pendente lite having notice and knowledge C about the pendency of the suit for specific performance and order of injunction can be impleaded as party under Order 1 Rule 10 on the basis of sale deeds executed in / its favour by the defendants" Allowing the appeal, the Court D HELD: (Per M.Y. Eqbal, J.) 1.1 Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which empowers the court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings if the presence of E such person before the court is necessary or proper for effective adjudication of the issue involved in the suit. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 gives a wider discretion to the court to meet every case or defect of a party and to proceed with a person who is either a necessary party F or a proper party whose presence in the court is essential for effective determination of the issues involved in the suit. [para 27 & 28] [100-8-C; 101-D-E] Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation G of Greater Bombay & Ors. 1992 (2) SCR 1=1992 (2) SCC 524 • referred to. 1.2 From a bare reading of s.19 of the Specific Relief AGt1 it is manifest that a Gontract for lipecific perform1mce H • 76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 2 S.C.R. A may be enforced against the parties to the contract and the persons mentioned in the said section. Clause (b) of s.19 makes it very clear that a suit for specific performance cannot be enforced against a person who is a transferee from the vendor for valuable consideration B and without notice of the original contract which is sought to be enforced in the suit. [para 31] [103-E-F] 1.3 In the instant case, even before the institution of suit for specific performance when the plaintiff came to know about the activities of the defendants to deal with C the property, a public notice was published at the instance of the plaintiff in a newspaper on 12.02.1990 informing the public in general about the agreement with the plaintiffs. In response to the said notice the sister concern of the appellant served a legal notice dated 'D 24.06.1990 on the defendants referring to the 'agreement to sell' entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Even after the institution of the suit, the counsel who appeared for the defendants gave an undert
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.