Aggrieved by the Order of the trial Court, the respondent plaintiff preferred a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court with the plea that the appellant was number a necessary or proper party and thus the order of the trial Court impleading him as a party defendant was erroneous.
The question raised for our companysideration is whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Order of the trial Court allowing the prayer of the appellant to be added as a party in a suit for specific performance filed by Respondent No.1 plaintiff.
A sum of Rs.1 lakh was received as advance.
It was further observed that since suit property is a Trust property, the trial Court can look into the relevant provisions of law and examine whether permission of the Court was required before entering into the sale agreement.
It held that the plaintiff was number a stranger to the subject matter of dispute and was entitled to be impleaded as a party.
The High Court upheld the plea of the plaintiff and dismissed the I.A. No.584 of 2008 filed by the appellant in the suit filed by the respondent plaintiff.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. Leave granted.
Aggrieved by the Order of the High Court, the appellant has approached this Court.
Reliance was placed on the Judgment of this Court in Bharat Karasondas Thakkar vs. Kiran Construction Co. and others2.
These appeals have been preferred against Orders dated 24th November, 2011 and 18th September, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madras, Bench at Madurai in C.R.P. No.2610 of 2010 and in Review Application No.1 of 2012 in C.R.P. No.2610 of 2010 respectively.
Case of the plaintiff in O.S. No.3 of 2007 filed in the Court of District Judge, Kanyakumari, is that K. Jagathees and R. Subbaram Babu Subbaram, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively original defendants in the suit acting as trustees of Subbaiah Paniker Family Welfare Trust for short the Trust entered into the agreement dated 9th December, 2003 to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff.
The price of the property was settled at Rs.22,000/ per cent.
The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract but the defendants failed to execute the sale deed even in extended time.
Reliance was placed on the Judgment of the Madras High Court in S.D. Joseph and Other vs. E. Ebinesan and others1 holding as follows Every member who is having interest and right should be given an opportunity of being heard and the companyrt must see whether subject matter companyld be factually adjudicated upon in the absence of proposed parties in a case where the property belonged to YMCA, a public Trust.
