AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vimla Singh Kapoor, J
Leave has already been granted to the appellant to file this appeal. On the earlier date of hearing on 21.2.2019, it was recorded that the parties
agree that the impugned judgment and decree may be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the trial Court for a fresh trial.
With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. The sole contention of learned counsel for the appellant is
that the property in dispute, in respect of which declaration was sought by the respondent-plaintiff, was purchased by registered sale deed by the
appellant on 17.4.2017 i.e. 10 days before filing of the suit by respondent- planitiff. Therefore, he was a necessary party in the suit.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not dispute this legal position and submit that the impugned judgment and decree may be set
aside and he would be moving an application for impleading the appellant as one of the parties.
In view of the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and admitted position that before filing of the suit, the disputed property was
sold by registered sale deed in favour of the appellant and law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarvindar Singh Vs. Dalip Singh & Ors.
(1996) 5 SCC 539, the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable without impleading the purchaser who had purchased the property by a registered sale deed
even prior to filing of the suit. Impugned judgment and decree, therefore, cannot be sustained in law and is, therefore, set aside. The matter is remitted
to the trial Court. The appellant shall be impleaded as the defendant by the respondent-plaintiff and, thereafter, the trial Court shall proceed to decide
the suit in accordance with law.
The parties to bear their respective costs.
Let appellate decree be drawn accordingly.