* THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2961 OF 2011 %Date: 07.12.2011 # 1. Smt. D. Shobha and 3 others. … Petitioners And $ 1. Smt. D. Prameela Kumari and another. … Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Chidambaram ^ Counsel for the 1st respondent: Sri G.Seshadri Counsel for the 2nd respondent: - <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ?CASES REFERRED: [1] 2007 (10) SCC 82 2 2009 (4) ALT 9 3 2009 (6) ALT 110 4 (2010) 7 SCC 417 5 (2005) 6 SCC 733 THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2961 OF 2011 DATED: 07.12.2011 Between : 1. Smt. D. Shobha and 3 others. … Petitioners And 1. Smt. D. Prameela Kumari and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2961 OF 2011 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is ﬁled against the order dated 30.04.2011 in I.A.No.926 of 2010 in O.S.No.110 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the Court Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiﬀ who ﬁled the suit against the respondent No.2 herein for speciﬁc performance of the Agreement of Sale, dated 13.3.1992 in respect of the suit schedule property. The revision petitioners who are third parties to this suit ﬁled I.A.No.926 of 2010 under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. for impleadment as defendants 2 to 5. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 30.04.2011 and aggrieved by the same the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The case of the plaintiﬀ/1st respondent herein is that the defendant/2nd respondent herein, through his General Power of Attorney executed the suit agreement dated 13.03.1992 for sale of the suit schedule property i.e., Ac.1-00 guntas in Sy.No.788 of Kistapur Village after receiving the entire sale consideration and the physical possession of the property was also delivered on the date of the agreement. Alleging that the defendant was not ready to execute the registered sale deed as agreed under the Agreement of Sale dated 13.03.1992, the suit is filed seeking a decree for specific performance. The revision petitioners/proposed defendants 2 to 5 claimed that they acquired title and possession in respect of Ac.0-16 guntas of land each out of the land situated in Sy.No.788/Part of Kistapur Village under the Gift Settlement Deed, dated 5.12.2002 executed by one Smt. Dosadi Yadamma. It is claimed that their names were mutated and incorporated in the revenue records as pattadars and possessors and that they also ﬁled O.S.No.99 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal against the defendant/respondent No.2 herein and one M.K.V. Sharma for injunction in respect of the land in their possession and the same was decreed ex parte on 28.04.2010. It is alleged that the plaintiﬀ/respondent No.1 herein ﬁled the suit for speciﬁc performance in collusion with the defendant/respondent No.2 herein claiming that she is in possession. It is contended that as a matter of fact neither the plaintiﬀ nor the defendant is in possession and the suit agreement is fabricated. Thus it is contended that their presence is necessary for proper adjudication of the suit and therefore they are entitled to be impleaded as defendants 2 to 5. The Court below dismissed the application holding that the petitioners being the third parties to the contract cannot be impleaded. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners while placing reliance upon SUMTI BAI AND OTHERS v. PARAS FINANCE COMPANY[1], V. NARAYAN REDDY v. ANI NARAYANAN[2] and INDU BAI v. RAJENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI[3] vehemently contended that though the petitioners are third parties to the contract they are entitled to be impleaded since they could show some semblance of title or interest in the property in dispute. I have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 / plaintiﬀ who has relied upon MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL (P) LIMITED v. REGENCY CONVENTION CENTRE & HOTELS (P) LIMITED[4] and KASTURI v. IYYAMPERUMAL[5] in support of his submission that the plaintiﬀ cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he seeks no relief. There can be no dispute about the ratio laid down in SUMTI BAI’S case (1 supra). However this is a case where the revision petitioners are claiming title adverse to the defendant in the suit. The question whether in a suit for speciﬁc performance of contract for sale of property by a purchaser against the vendor, a stranger or a third party to the contract claiming to have an independent title and possession over the contracted property is entitled to be added as a party-defendant in the said suit has been considered in detail by the Supreme Court in KASTURI’S case (5 supra) and it was held as under: “In our view, a bare reading of this provision namely, second part of Order 1 Rule 10 sub-rule (2) of the CPC would clearly show that the necessary parties in a suit for speciﬁc performance of a contract for sale are the parties to the contract or if they are dead their legal representatives as also a person who had purchased the contracted property from the vendor. In equity as well as in law, the contract constitutes rights and also regulates the liabilities of the parties. A purchaser is a necessary party as he would be aﬀected if he had purchased with notice of the contract, but a person who claims adversely to the claim of a vendor is, however, not a necessary party. From the above, it is now clear that two tests are to be satisﬁed for determining the question who is a necessary party. Tests are – (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings (2) no eﬀective decree can be passed in the absence of such party.” On application of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, I am of the opinion that the revision petitioners, who are claiming title adverse to that of the defendant / respondent No.2 herein are not proper and necessary parties to enable the Court to eﬀectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. This is a clear case where the revision petitioners have put up title adverse to the defendant/2nd respondent herein and it is not that they are claiming title through the defendant. Therefore, as held in KASTURI’S case (5 supra), the petitioners are not proper and necessary parties and the Court below has rightly dismissed their application for impleadment. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 07.12.2011 L.R.Copy to be marked. B/o gbs [1] 2007 (10) SCC 82 [2] 2009 (4) ALT 9 [3] 2009 (6) ALT 110 [4] (2010) 7 SCC 417 [5] (2005) 6 SCC 733