Case: Prem Kaliaandas Daryanani &amp; Others Vs. Natvarlal C. Modi &amp; Others

the Plaintiff and the defendants. The Plaintiff who filed the suit against the defendant was entitled to seek relief and proceed against all persons claiming under the defendants as may be likely to be legally affected by the decree that may be passed in favour of the Plaintiff in the pending suit. It is duty of the learned trial judge to vigilantly observe the requisite procedure to frame all the relevant issues, meet all the points in controversy before him, and record findings in respect of them to decide the suit on merits and according to law as would be necessary to enable it to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. In a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, the issue to be decided is the enforceability of the contract entered into between the appellant (Plaintiff) and Respondents (Ori. Defendants) who agreed to sell the suit property to the Plaintiff . The main issues as to whether contract was executed by the appellant and Respondents for sale of the suit property-contracted property-, whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and whether the appellant-Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale against Respondents-vendor and persons claiming under vendor. Such a suit in our opinion, can not be thrown out merely because of the unscrupulous litigant invented a trick or two of filing pursis in this case informing about transfer to third party to defeat the suit claim by creating third party interest during pendency of the dispute so as to affect enforceability of the suit agreement to Sell. The subsequent transferee, if any, may in such case be added as proper party, even if considered as not necessary party, for to ensure that proper and effective decree is passed pursuant to final adjudication on merits in respect of the real controversy between the parties, in presence of all the persons interested in the result of the suit controversy. Subsequent Transferee of the suit property would be subject to the decree that may be passed in the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell/Contract an his presence before the trial court would be proper. At the same time trial judge must note that issue as to enforceability of the agreement to sell/ Contract is real controversy to be decided in such suit for specific performance of the Contract and the issues arising in such suit cannot not be widened beyond it by unnecessarily importing in suit the complicated questions of title raised by any third party to the Contract. Suffice it to state that such complicated issues of title claimed or raised by third party to the suit agreement/Contract can be decided by independent suit or proceeding according to law. For deciding the question as to who is a proper party in the 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 in the civil suit is to be decided keeping in mind the real scope of the suit. The question that is to be decided in a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale is primarily the enforceability of the contract /agreement entered into between the parties to the contract. True it is that, if every third person seeking addition as defendant is added in such a suit, the scope of the suit for specific performance would be widened and it would be practically converted into a suit for title. Therefore, for effective adjudication of the controversies involved in the suit to decide whether the agreement to sell is enforceable according to law, presence of such third parties may not be necessary. But in the facts and circumstances of the case impleadment of third party claiming under the vendor may be proper when the court finds that there was a ploy on the part of the trickster defendant to defeat the suit claim by effecting transfers subsequent to the execution of the suit agreement and third party took the transfer with express or implied knowledge or notice of the suit agreement, then it becomes duty of the trial court to decide the suit finally, effectively and completely so as to adjudicate the real controversy in the pending suit. The very existence of the court is to do justice between the parties and it is always in the interest of public policy and justice to avoid the multiplicity of judicial proceedings requiring the court to decide again in respect of the same subject matter. Equity will enforce specific performance of the contract for sale against the vendor himself and against all persons claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract except a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration who have paid their money and taken a conveyance without notice of the original contract. The statement of the law in equity is exactly what is meant by the first two clauses of S.27, Specific Relief Act. Thus, when the defendant has committed breach of the contract and can be blamed for it, the plaintiff has choice to pray for the relief of recission of any contract/conveyance executed subsequent to the suit contract, which is voidable at his option because it is unlawful for causes not apparent on its face but for execution of which the defendant is to be blamed for his dishonest act.11. Having regard to the law discussed hereinabove and in the facts and circumstances of the case and also for the ends of justice the subsequent transferees or persons claiming under them ought to be added as proper party-defendants in the suit though issue for decision in the pending special civil suit need not be enlarged beyond the scope of the decision as to enforceability of the suit agreement according to law .

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]7. The answer in our opinion is in the affirmative for following reasons:Regarding addition of Party the ruling by Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1518 of 201, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24159 of 2009) Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak BuildersOrs. (AIR 2013 SC 2389  ), need to be referred here for the proposition that any subsequent transferee with notice/knowledge of earlier agreement can be added as proper party to the suit.Having regard to the law discussed hereinabove and in the facts and circumstances of the case and also for the ends of justice the subsequent transferees or persons claiming under them ought to be added as properin the suit though issue for decision in the pending special civil suit need not be enlarged beyond the scope of the decision as to enforceability of the suit agreement according to law .