JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The suits for specific performance filed by the appellant were finally heard and judgment reserved. However, the judgment was not pronounced for some time and it is at that stage that the appellant moved applications alleging that he had now come to know that one of the defendants is a borrower from Indian Bank under a partnership firm entity, for which proceedings had been initiated by the bank under the SARFAESI Act. The appellant, as plainitff, apparently wanted to stall the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, as that would affect its rights in the suits for specific performance and also simultaneously impleaded the Indian Bank as a party.
2. The applications were resisted by the defendants in the suit, but for some reason, no response was filed by the Indian Bank. The primary objection to such an impleadment is that in a suit for specific performance for agreement of sale, the Indian Bank would have no locus standi.
3. The applications have been dismissed by the impugned order dated 13.08.2013
4. The rationale for the impugned order is the reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Limited v. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Limited, AIR 2012 SC 2925, where, while laying down the principles, it has been specifically observed that in a suit for specific performance, the Court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board and within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation. More importantly, the Supreme Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, 2005 3 MLJ 124 (SC), has laid down the proposition that in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of property instituted by a purchaser against the vendors, a stranger or a third party to the contract claiming independent title and possession over the contract property is not entitled to be added as a party to the suit.
5. In this context, Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act was also referred to, which provides for relief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title and thus, parties who were not claiming under the vendor, but were claiming adverse to the title of the vendor, do not fall in any of the categories enumerated in sub-sections (a) to (e) of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act. We would like to extract the relevant portions of the said judgment:
6. In Kasturi case, supra, a reference has also been made to two other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra Alias Gadasa Guru, (1995) 3 SCC 147, the Supreme Court held thus:
7. The aforesaid view was again found favour in Vijay Pratap v. Sambhu Saran, (1996) 10 SCC 53. The scope of a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale should not be enlarged from a suit for specific performance to a suit for title and possession, which is not permissible in law.
8. In the context of the aforesaid principles, when we apprise of the facts of the present case, we find that the rights of specific performance are claimed by the appellant only against the original defendants. As to whether the appellant/plaintiff was ready, willing and able to perform its obligations is not something on which the Indian Bank can be of any assistance to the Court in coming to a conclusion. It has also not been made clear as to in what manner the Indian Bank seeks to enforce its right and that too, for a part of the land only, i.e where that part of the land was mortgaged as security or collateral security or otherwise. Our queries to the learned counsel for the respondents has not evinced any convincing answer in this behalf.
9. Be that as it may, the appellant cannot get around the issue that in so far as the suits for specific performance are concerned, the presence of Indian Bank is neither necessary nor appropriate for the purpose of final conclusion whether this specific performance is enforceable against the defendants or not.
10. We, thus, find no merit in the writ appeal. The Writ Appeal accordingly, stands dismissed. Parties will have to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions also stand dismissed.