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 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 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) 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 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 – distinguished.
Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Others (2005) 6 SCC 733 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.