A donor cannot use impleadment to convert the donee’s injunction suit into a title suit.

Petitioner No. 1 filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming title to the suit property under a registered gift deed executed by petitioner No. 2.

During the suit, petitioner No. 2 claimed to have revoked the gift deed and applied to be impleaded under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC; he also sought, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, to amend the plaint to add a declaration of title.

The trial court rejected both applications, reasoning that petitioner No. 2 could not prosecute petitioner No. 1’s suit on the basis of his own subsequent claim and that the proposed amendment would alter the suit’s nature.

Petitioner No. 2 challenged those orders in this writ petition.

Whether petitioner No. 2, who had gifted the property to petitioner No. 1 and later claimed to have revoked the gift, could be impleaded in petitioner No. 1’s injunction suit and seek to convert it into a suit for declaration of title.

Order I Rule 10(2) CPC governs the addition of parties to proceedings; Order VI Rule 17 CPC governs amendment of pleadings; and Section 151 CPC preserves the court’s inherent powers, as invoked in the applications.

The Court noted Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu, (2002) 7 SCC 559, observing that its principles concerning amendment to add a declaratory relief could have been considered had the original plaintiff sought the amendment, subject to the circumstances and governing principles.

It distinguished that situation from one in which a person seeking impleadment seeks to introduce his own title claim into another plaintiff’s suit.

Petitioner No. 1’s suit was founded on the rights he asserted under the gift deed and on his own pleaded cause of action.

Petitioner No. 2’s subsequent claim that the deed had been revoked did not, by itself, entitle him to enter the suit and prosecute it on a different basis.

The Court considered that the requested amendment would do more than protect an interest: it would transform an injunction suit brought by petitioner No. 1 into a comprehensive title suit founded on petitioner No. 2’s claim.

The defendants’ denial of petitioner No. 1’s title did not justify introducing petitioner No. 2’s independent title claim into the pending proceedings.

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the trial court’s orders, while leaving petitioner No. 2 free to assert any available rights in a separate suit.

It reserved liberty to petitioner No. 2 to institute an independent suit and seek appropriate interim relief; all contentions were left open for consideration by the competent court.

An interim order in MFA No. 4496/2020 was continued for four weeks to enable petitioner No. 2 to bring such proceedings and seek relief.