2015(2) Supreme 103
AIR 2015 SC 1264.
O.1, R.10(2) r/w Sec. 49, Indian Trusts Acts – Impleadment of parties – Ambit and Scope – A beneficiary of a trust is entitled to be impelled in a suit involving alienation of Trust property .
K. Jagathees and R.Subbaram Babu @ Subbaram, Respondent Nos. 2 nd 3 respectively (original defendants in the suit) acting as trustees of ―Subaiah Paniker Family Welfare Trust‖ entered into the agreement dated 9th December, 2003 to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.3 of 2007 filed in the Court of District Judge, Kanyakumari. The price of the property was settled at Rs.22,000/- per cent. A sum of Rs. 1 lakh was received as advance. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendants failed to execute the sald deed even in extended time. During pendency of the suit, the appellant filed I.A.No.584 of 2008 in O.S.No.3 of 2007 for being impleaded as defendant pleading that he will suffer prejudice being beneficiary of the Trust if the sale is effected at a throw away price. According to him, the value of the property was more than Rs.50,000/- per cent while the proposed sale was for Rs.22,000/- per cent. The trial Court accepted the application it held that the plaintiff was not a stranger to the subject matter of dispute and was entitled to be impleaded as a party. The respondent-plaintiff preferred a revision petition before the High Court. 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. After due consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that the HighCourt erred in interfering with the order of the trial Court impending the appellant as a party defendant. Admittedly, the appellant is a beneficiary of the Trust and under the provisions of the Trusts Act, the Trustee has to act reasonably in exercise of his right of alienation under the terms of the trust deed. Appellant cannot thus be treated as a stranger. No doubt, it may be permissible for the appellant to file a separate suit, as suggested by Respondent No.1, but the beneficiary could certainly be held to be a proper party. There is no valid reason to decline his prayer to be impleaded as a party to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Order 1 Rule 10(2), C.P.C. enables, the Court to add a necessary or proper party so as to ―effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.‖ In the present case, the appellant could not be held to be a stranger being beneficiary of the Trust property. The trial Court was justified in impleading him as a party. The High Court erred in interfering with the order of the trial Court.
🟨Baluram v. P. Chellathangam & Ors.,
🔶2015(2) Supreme 103
AIR 2015 SC 1264.