Quick Summary: The Delhi High Court agreed with a lower court's decision not to add a new person, Toheed, to a property case. The court thought that adding Toheed would make the case more complicated than it needed to be.
Nazra Khatoon started a case to divide property and stop others from taking it, which was left by her predecessor, Ms. Sahiba. She wanted Toheed to be part of the case, saying he wrongly took over the property, claiming he bought it from Mohd. Zafar, who is already in the case.
Toheed said that Ms. Sahiba had already sold the property to someone else before he bought it. He argued that the case to divide the property wasn't valid because he legally owned it.
"Toheed said the property was sold to him and that the case to divide it isn't even valid."
The lower court, using a decision from the Supreme Court, decided that Toheed wasn't someone who needed to be in the case. They said his involvement would bring in issues that weren't part of the original case.
"The Agreement to Sell and related papers... aren't valid documents to transfer ownership."
The court explained that a "necessary party" is someone without whom the court can't make a proper decision. A "proper party" is someone who helps the court solve the issue completely but isn't needed for the decision.
"A necessary party is someone without whom no proper decision can be made."
The court talked about other decisions, like in the case of Kasturi vs Iyyamperumal, stressing that adding people shouldn't change what the case is about.
Justice Girish Kathpalia agreed with the lower court's decision, saying that including Toheed would make the case more complicated for no reason. Nazra Khatoon was told to pay Rs.10,000 in costs.
"The request and the related applications are dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000."
This decision shows how important it is to keep legal cases focused on the original issues without making them more complicated.
