The Delhi High Court set aside a Single Judge’s order that had allowed impleadment of a third party in a suit for specific performance.
The case arose out of an Agreement to Sell dated December 27, 2022, involving the sale of a property in Chandni Chowk, New Delhi, for ₹7 crore. While the plaintiffs (Respondents 1–3) sought enforcement of the contract, the appellant contended that the actual consideration was ₹9 crore due to an additional agreement of ₹2 crore. During pendency of the suit, the appellant’s brother-in-law (Respondent 4) sought impleadment as a co-owner.
The Single Judge had allowed the impleadment to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. However, the Division Bench ruled that such addition was impermissible, as a suit for specific performance is confined to contractual enforcement and cannot be converted into a title dispute. Relying on Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal (2005) 6 SCC 733 and other precedents, the Court held that strangers to the contract cannot be impleaded merely to claim independent ownership.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impleadment order, and clarified that Respondent 4 was at liberty to pursue his claim separately before a competent court.
Appearances:
Appellant: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw and Ms. Sagarika Kaul, Advs
Respondent: Mr. Hemant Kumar and Mr. Venkatesh Joshi, Advs. for R-1 to R-3
