Prerna Seemar Kalra vs Pramod Anand And Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

On 16th November, 2017, the following order was passed in this petition:-

“1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order [dated 9th May, 2017 in CIS No.10887/2016 of

the Court of Additional District Judge-04, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi] of dismissal of an application filed by the petitioner under

Order I Rule 0 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for impleadment in the suit.Â

Though the counsel for the petitioner has not filed the copies of the pleadings and the issues framed in the suit but on enquiry informs that i) the

respondents no.2&3 viz. Jayadittya Palit and Rajika Puri instituted the suit, from which this petition arises, against the respondent no.1 for

declaration that they had agreed to purchase an immovable property from the respondent no.1 and had paid the entire sale consideration thereof to

respondent no.1 and were put in possession of the property by respondent no.1 and were owners of the property and for restraining the respondent

no.1 from interfering with the said ownership rights of the respondents no.2&3; ii) that there is no Sale Deed by the respondent no.1 in favour of the

respondents no.2&3 and only an Agreement to Sell; iv) that the respondents no.2&3 further sold the property to the petitioner; and, v) that the

petitioner applied for substitution / impleadment in place of the respondents no.2&3 who are not interested in pursuing the suit.   Â

I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to how the suit for declaration was maintainable when the appropriate remedy was to file a

suit for specific performance.Â

When the respondents no.2&3 evidently had no right or cause of action for instituting the suit, the question of the petitioner succeeding to the cause

of action would not arise.Â

The counsel for the petitioner to file before this Court the pleadings and the issues and the order sheet in the suit and to also inform the counsel for

the respondents to appear on the next date of hearing.Â

At this stage, the counsel for the respondents no.2&3 appears.Â

The counsel for respondent no.1 be informed.Â

List on 5th December, 2017.â€​Â

The counsel for the respondent no.1 and the counsel for the respondents no.2&3 appear.Â

The senior counsel for the petitioner, in response to the query as contained in the order dated 16th November, 2017 reproduced above, has referred

to para 9 of Vimla Gautam Vs. Mohini Jain 2013 I AD (Delhi) 516 and to paras 13 & 14 of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC

594.Â

However neither of the aforesaid judgments answer the query which was raised.Â

The respondents no.2&3 / plaintiffs, in the suit from which this petition arises, claimed the following reliefs:-

“(a) declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property â€" namely C-423, 2nd Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi comprising of

one bedroom with attached bathroom, one unattached bathroom, one drawing room, one dining room, kitchen, existing top room over the garage block

and it’s bathroom, along with open terraces at the front and back of the flat and rights to all common areas;

(b) pass a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant, his agents, assigns and those claiming under him from selling, alienating,

creating any third party interest, interfering with, trespassing, or dispossessing the plaintiffs from possession, or of undertaking any action to prevent

the plaintiffs from exercising and enjoying their full ownership rights, in the suit property namely C-423, 2nd Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi

comprising of one bedroom with attached bathroom, one unattached bathroom, one drawing room, one dining room, kitchen, existing top room over the

garage block and it’s bathroom, along with open terraces at the front and back of the flat and rights to all common areas;

(c) pass a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant, his agents, assigns and those claiming under him from attempting to

dispose of any movable property of the plaintiffs from the suit property namely C-423, 2nd Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi comprising of one

bedroom with attached bathroom, one unattached bathroom, one drawing room, one dining room, kitchen, existing top room over the garage block and

it’s bathroom, along with open terraces at the front and back of the flat and rights to all common areas;â€​Â

The position according to the petitioner also is, (i) that the respondent no.1 was the registered owner of the 2nd floor of property no.C-423, Defence

Colony, New Delhi; (ii) that the respondent no.1 executed registered Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney and Will with respect to the said

second floor in favour of predecessor-in-interest of respondents no.2&3; (iii) that the respondents no.2&3 filed the suit from which this petition arises

claiming the aforesaid reliefs; (iv) that the respondents no.2&3, though there was only an Agreement to Sell in favour of their predecessor, executed a

registered Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner; and, (v) the petitioner approached in the suit aforesaid filed by the respondents no.2&3, for being

impleaded as a party thereto and which application was dismissed and impugning which order this petition has been filed.Â

Since the claim of respondents no.2&3 / plaintiffs in the suit was for declaration of ownership on the basis only of Agreement to Sell, General

Power of Attorney and Will in their favour from the respondent no.1/defendant and which documents in accordance with the dicta of the Supreme

Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries P. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656 overruling the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Â

Asha M. Jain Vs. Canara Bank 94 (2001) DLT 841 did not constitute documents of title, it was enquired from the counsel for the petitioner on 16th

November, 2017 as aforesaid, that when on a bare reading of the plaint there is no possibility of granting of relief of declaration of ownership on the

basis of Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney and Will, what purpose will impleadment of the petitioner in such a suit serve.Â

One of the contentions of the senior counsel for the petitioner today is that this petition is concerned only with impleadment and the question,

whether the suit is maintainable or not, will be decided only after the petitioner is impleaded.

I am afraid not.

This Court cannot be privy to a useless exercise taking up the time of the Courts subordinate to it. It has been held in Liverpool and London S.P.

and I Asson. Ltd Vs. M.V. Sea Success I (2004) 9 SCC 512 that when there is no possibility of grant of relief claimed on the averments in the plaint,

the Courts should remove the said lis from their Board as deadwood and such lis should not be permitted to clog up the Courts at the cost of other

deserving matters. It cannot be lost sight of, that the Courts are for adjudication of bona fide disputes and not for litigants and lawyers to spend time

there.Â

The senior counsel for the petitioner then, with reference to Vimla Gautam supra, contended that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, after noticing

Suraj Lamp & Industries P. Ltd., held the suit to be maintainable.

All that Vimla Gautam supra is found to have held is that though an Agreement to Sell does not confer ownership but creates rights under Section

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The same nowhere holds as indeed could not hold,

contrary to what the Supreme Court held in Suraj Lamp & Industries P. Ltd. supra.Â

The relief claimed in the suit in the present case, as aforesaid, is of declaration of ownership and not in assertion of any of the said rights.

Choice has been given to the senior counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner, in the event of being permitted to be impleaded, can at best seek

injunction against forceful dispossession.Â

The senior counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, presses for a declaration of ownership on the basis of Agreement to Sell, Power of

Attorney and Will and which cannot be permitted.Â

The senior counsel for the petitioner has also raised the argument of prescription, contending that the Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney and

Will in favour of the predecessor of the respondents no.2&3 are over 12 years old.Â

Attention of the senior counsel for the petitioner has been drawn to the consistent judgments of the Supreme Court in Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil

Vs. Balwant (1995) 2 SCC 543, Mohan Lal Vs. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639, Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India (2004)

10 SCC 779, T. Anjanappa Vs. Somalingappa (2006) 7 SCC 570, P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy Vs. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59, L.N. Aswathama Vs.

P. Prakash (2009) 13 SCC 229 and Dagadabai Vs. Abbas (2017) 13 SCC 705 holding that a claim for prescription cannot co-exist with and is

antithetical to the claim for lawful title and it has been enquired, whether the petitioner, if at all impleaded in the suit, is willing to give up the claim of

lawful title on the basis of Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney and Will in favour of predecessor of respondents no.2&3 and Sale Deed in her own

favour and only then can urge the plea of prescription.Â

The senior counsel for the petitioner has no instructions in this regard also.Â

I may also mention that the respondents no.2&3, as plaintiffs in the suit from which this petition arises, have not made any claim for ownership on

the basis of prescription, if at all can be made as a sword instead of as a shield. Thus, the plea of prescription i.e. of adverse possession being argued

before this Court is also contrary to the pleadings.Â

As far as the reliance on Anathula Sudhakar is concerned, the said judgment is a precedent on an enquiry and declaration of title to immovable

property being not permissible in a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter. Paras 13 & 14 of the said judgment, to which attention is drawn, are also

to the effect that where the title to the property is in dispute, a relief of declaration has to be specifically claimed and title cannot be proved in a claim

for permanent injunction simpliciter.

The reason which has prevailed with this Court in the order dated 16th November, 2017 is, that the claim in the suit for declaration cannot be

granted on the facts pleaded in the plaint itself. I am unable to understand the relevance of Anathula Sudhakar to the said aspect.

Once it is found that the relief of declaration of ownership cannot be granted on the facts pleaded, no purpose will be served in considering the

aspect of impleadment of the petitioner. I may also mention, that as far as the relief claimed in the suit of injunction against forceful dispossession is

concerned, the counsel for the respondents no.2&3 states that the respondents no.2&3 continue to be in possession of the property. The senior

counsel for the petitioner, under instructions controverts that the respondents no.2&3 are in possession and contends that the petitioner is in

possession.

The same also demonstrates, that no case for substitution of the petitioner qua the relief of injunction also is made out inasmuch as the cause of action

if any to the petitioner is not the cause of action with which the suit was filed.Â

There is thus no merit in the petition.

Dismissed, with costs of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent no.1 and Rs.20,000/- to the respondents no.2&3.