An unregistered Agreement to Sell cannot be the basis of claiming ownership, the said Agreement to Sell cannot, in law, be a ground or the basis for the impleadment of the Petitioner in a partition suit as upheld by the High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by Justice Prathiba M. Singh in the case of Rajbala Ghiloria v. Ashok Kumar Sethi & Anr (C.R.P. 67/2021 & CM APPL. 31940/2021).
The brief background of the matter is that a suit for partition was filed in respect of the property bearing no. C-2/21, Malka Ganj, Delhi –17 by the Plaintiff in the suit/ Respondent No. 1 herein. Respondent No. 2 herein is the Defendant in the suit. It is the admitted position between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Plaintiff owns 1/3rd share of the suit property and the Defendant owns 2/3rd share in the same. However, the case of the Applicant/Petitioner herein is that the Defendant in the suit has sold his share of the property to the Petitioner. Accordingly, in view of the fact that the interest of the Petitioner could be affected in the said suit proceedings, the Petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, for impleadment as a necessary party, which has been rejected by the Trial Court. Hence this present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the CPC.
The Hon’ble High Court held, “A suit for partition has to be adjudicated between the co-owners of the property. Since the rights of the Petitioner, if any, are yet to be determined in the suit for specific performance which is pending before the Trial Court, the Petitioner cannot claim a right to be impleaded, in the suit for partition. Thus, the Trial Court is not at fault, in holding that the suit for partition would have to be adjudicated only between the co-owners. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. All pending applications are also disposed of. Let a copy of the present order be sent to C.R.P. 67/2021 Page 13 of 13 the ld. District Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, so as to list both the suits before the same ADJ.”
Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani