IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1176 of 2008 SUNNI KUMAR SINGH & ANR Versus AMBIKA PRASAD YADAV & ANR ----------- 2 11.09.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application of the petitioner for impleadment as a party. Here is the case of a plain and simple suit for specific performance brought by the plaintiff, opposite party No.1 against opposite party No.2, Ajay Singh who is the father of the petitioners. The plea of the petitioners that the property did not belong to his father and as a matter of fact in the family partition, it had been allotted to them, is a plea of defence which will not create a title in favour of the petitioners. The Court below has gone into this aspect and has found everything to be rather shady. The next contention of the petitioners that his father is missing and therefore they have a right to defend the suit, is also to be noticed for its being rejected. Nothing has been brought on record before the Court below as to the date when the father of the petitioner had been missing and as to whether the presumption of a civil death can be drawn. In that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be substituted to represent the - 2 - interest of their father unless the Court below is satisfied about the death/civil death of the opposite party No.2, Ajay Singh. It must be made clear that this civil death of Ajay Singh was not the ground for being added as a party to the suit. Counsel for the petitioners has strongly relied on their judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sumati Bai and Ors. Vs. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnership Firm and Ors. reported in 2008(1) PLJR 78(SC). In the opinion of this Court, that judgment will have no application for a simple reason that before the ratio of the judgment in paragraph No. 14 has to be examined, one must take notice of paragraph No.9 of the same judgment where it has been said that when a person shows some semblance of title or interest in the property in dispute, the intervention by way of impleadment of party can be allowed. The Apex Court in the case of Sumati Bai (supra) having considered the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kasturi Vs. Lyyamperumal reported in 2005 (6) SCC 733 has held only to this extent that the general principle is that a third party has no right to be impleaded as a party in a suit for specific performance of contract and by way of exception such a person can be impleaded when semblance of title or interest in disputed property can be - 3 - established. In that case before the Apex Court there was infact a registered sale deed dated 12.8.1960 on the basis of which the intervener seeking impleadment had shown their right to be impleaded. Such however is not the position in the present case. The Court below has gone into the so called deed of family arrangement and has rejected it for more than one reason. Moreover, such a private arrangement of family property cannot by itself lead to some semblance much less irresistible inference of title or interest of the petitioner in the suit property. That being so, this Court would not find jurisdictional error in the impugned order and accordingly, this Civil Revision application being devoid of any merit must be and is hereby dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)