HARI MOHAN SHARMA & ANR.versusCHARANJEET SINGH REKHI & ORS. ETC.

324               SUPREME[2018]
                          COURT 14REPORTS
                                  S.C.R. 324              [2018] 14 S.C.R.


A                    HARI MOHAN SHARMA & ANR.
                                      v.
                CHARANJEET SINGH REKHI & ORS. ETC.
                     (Civil Appeal Nos. 11029-30 of 2018)
                            NOVEMBER 16, 2018
B
                [R.F. NARIMAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
             Party/Parties: Necessary party – Suit for specific performance
      – Determination of correct defendants – Issue arose whether one
      CS and his wife who are defendant no. 2 & 3 in one group of SLP
      and defendant no. 1 & 2 in other group of SLP are persons who do
C     not purport to be who they say they are – I.As had been filed by two
      other CS one belonging to Moradabad and other to Uttarakhand
      stating that each one of them are defendant no. 1 and 2 and
      defendant no. 2 and 3 respectively in the suits – Single Judge of the
      High Court held that a question of mistaken identity cannot be gone
D     into in a specific performance suit, and that the plaintiff does not
      claim anything against the persons who have filed the I.As but only
      against one CS, who belongs to Delhi (since deceased), and his
      wife MK who is in US – Division Bench set aside the order – On
      appeal held: Plaintiff in both the suits for specific performance is
      dominus litus and has chosen CS who resides in Delhi (since deceased)
E     and his wife MK as persons against whom the lis exists – It was
      pleaded that the persons mentioned defendant nos. 1 & 2 and
      defendant nos. 2 & 3 in the two suits are, in fact, the persons
      mentioned in the two I.As – Plaintiff has no lis against such persons
      – Thus, the persons in the I.As are neither necessary nor proper
F     parties in the present adjudication – Order passed by the Division
      Bench is set aside and that of the Single Judge of the High Court is
      restored.
            Sumtibai & Others v. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar
            W/o Parasmal Chordia (D) & Ors. [2007] 10 SCR 543
G           – distinguished.
            Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Others (2005) 6 SCC 733
            – referred to.
                        Case Law Reference
      [2007] 10 SCR 543        distinguished                 Para 7
H     (2005) 6 SCC 733         referred to                   Para 7
                                324
  HARI MOHAN SHARMA & ANR. v. CHARANJEET SINGH                                325
                    REKHI

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11029-                 A
11030 of 2018.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 07.07.2014 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO(OS) Nos.213/2013 and 235/2013.
                                   With
                                                                              B
      Civil Appeal Nos. 11031-11033 of 2018.
      Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Neelima Tripathi, K. V. Mohan,
Ms. Gunjan Singh, Joydip Bhattacharya, Hitesh Kumar, Lalltaksh Joshi,
Abid Ali Beeran P, M. Qyamuddin, Wajeeh Shafiq, Mukesh K. Verma,
Rajeev Kumar, Manu Parkash Upadhyay, Anis Ahmed Khan, Advs. for               C
the appearing parties.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
       2. In both these cases, suits for specific performance have been
                                                                              D
filed. The narrow question that arises is whether one Charanjeet Singh
Rekhi and his wife - Manjit Kaur, who are Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 in SLP
(C) Nos. 32725-32726 of 2014 and Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in SLP (C)
Nos. 28958-28960/2014 are persons who do not purport to be who they
say they are. This arises out of I.As that have been filed by two other
Charanjeet Singh Rekhis’, one belonging to Moradabad and the other            E
belonging to Uttarakhand, stating that each one of them are Defendant
Nos. 1 & 2 and Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 respectively in these suits, and
considering that it should conclusively be determined as to who the correct
defendants are, they are necessary parties to both specific performance
suits.
                                                                              F
       3. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi, by judgment
dated 05.03.2013, held that a question of mistaken identity cannot be
gone into in a specific performance suit, as the persons who have filed
the I.As are either necessary or proper parties to the suits for the reason
that the plaintiff does not claim anything against them but only against
one Charanjeet Singh Rekhi, who belongs to Delhi, and who has since           G
died. His wife, Manjit Kaur, is no longer in India and resides in the
United States. Both the I.As were, therefore, dismissed.
      4. In an appeal filed to the Division Bench, this judgment was
reversed stating:
                                                                              H
326                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 14 S.C.R.


A            “35. It is contended that the appellants are not parties to the
             contract and therefore, are not necessary parties in a suit for
             specific performance of the contract. In our view, treating the
             appellants as separate from Charanjeet Singh Rekhi & Manjit
             Kaur Rekhi would be an erroneous assumption as their application
             under Order 1 Rule 10(2) is premised on the basis that they are
B
             Charanjeet Singh Rekhi & Manjit Kaur Rekhi or are claiming
             through them. Indisputably, Charanjeet Singh Rekhi & Manjit
             Kaur are parties to the contract which is sought to be specifically
             enforced. The appellants may not have signed the contract but
             are claiming to be the persons who are named therein. In this
C            situation, would it be open for the respondents to contend that the
             appellants who claim to be Charanjeet Singh Rekhi & Manjit Kaur
             Rekhi are not parties to the contract. We think not. The very
             assumption that the parties to the contract are persons other than
             the appellants or their predecessors is the controversy that has
             been raised by the appellants. The only question that thus arises
D
             is whether this controversy has to be decided in the present suits
             or whether the appellants are to be relegated to filing separate
             suit(s). It is obvious that this controversy would have to be settled
             in order that the controversy with regard to any agreement entered
             into by the Charanjeet Singh Rekhi & Manjit Kaur Rekhi can be
E            decided. Thus, in our view, it would be apposite if this controversy
             is decided in the present suit in order that all the disputes in the
             present suit can be effectively adjudicated.”
             5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
      view that the Single Judge is correct. The plaintiff in both the suits for
F     specific performance is dominus litus and has chosen Charanjeet Singh
      Lekhi who resides in Delhi (since deceased) and his wife Manjit Kaur
      as persons against whom the lis exists.
             6. It is clear that if ultimately it is found that there is no cause of
      action against either of these people, his suit will fail; or if it is found, in
G     execution proceedings, that the aforesaid persons have nothing to do
      with the agreement to sell in question, such execution proceedings will
      fail. That is the risk that the plaintiff takes in these matters. It is clear,
      therefore, that persons who state that they happen to be Defendant
      Nos. 1 & 2 and Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 respectively in the two suits are
      persons who have to take independent proceedings against the said
H
   HARI MOHAN SHARMA & ANR. v. CHARANJEET SINGH                                   327
              REKHI [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

defendants and/or the plaintiff if they allege collusion between the plaintiff    A
and the defendants.
       7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has
supported the impugned judgment and has cited to us a judgment dated
04.10.2007 in Civil Appeal No. 117 of 2001 titled Sumtibai & Others vs.
Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W/o Parasmal Chordia (D) & Ors.                       B
in which this Court has stated that there can be no absolute proposition
that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed, a third party can
never be impleaded in that suit. These observations were made in the
context of a sale deed that had been entered into with one Kapoor Chand
and his two sons. After Kapoor Chand died, his two sons wished to take
up certain additional pleas in an additional written statement sought to be       C
filed by them. This was ultimately allowed by this Court, stating that the
registered sale deed itself shows that the purchaser was not Kapoor
Chand alone, but also his sons as co-owners. Hence, prima facie ,the
sons of Kapoor Chand are also co-owners of the property in dispute
and, therefore, have some semblance of title. It was in this fact situation       D
that the judgment in Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and Others, (2005) 6
SCC 733 was distinguished.
       8. We are of the view that the aforesaid judgment has no application
on the facts of the present case. The case pleaded before us is that the
person mentioned as Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 and Defendant Nos. 2 & 3                 E
in the two suits are, in fact, the persons mentioned in the two I.As. This
being clear, the plaintiff in the specific performance suit has no lis against
such persons, and have chosen to have a lis only against Defendant
Nos. 1 & 2 and 2 & 3 (original).
      9. This being the case, it is clear that the persons in the I.As are        F
neither necessary nor proper parties in the present adjudication.
     10. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed and the Division Bench
judgment is set aside and restored to that of the single Judge.

Nidhi Jain                                                     Appeals allowed.   G




                                                                                  H