THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5241 OF 2011 DATED 3RD DECEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN K.Laxmi and others. …Petitioners/ Proposed Defendants No.3 to 7 And M.Shiva Kumar and others. …Respondents/Plaintiff/ Defendants 1 and 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5241 OF 2011 O R D E R O.S.No.78 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, was ﬁled by respondent 1 against respondents 2 and 3 herein seeking speciﬁc performance of an oral agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property. Seeking to be impleaded in the said suit as defendants 3 to 7, the petitioners herein, being the major sons and daughters of respondents 2 and 3, ﬁled an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC in I.A.No.297 of 2011 in the suit. By order dated 09.09.2011, the trial Court dismissed the said application giving rise to the present Civil Revision Petition. Heard Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.R.Deshmukh, learned counsel on caveat for respondent 1/plaintiff in the suit. The trial Court dismissed the impleadment application on the ground that allowing the petitioners herein to come on record would convert the speciﬁc performance suit into a suit for partition. The trial Court was of the opinion that the petitioners could independently sue for partition. It accordingly held that they were neither ‘necessary’ nor ‘proper’ parties to the speciﬁc performance suit. The trial Court also relied on the fact that they were not parties to the oral agreement of sale and observed that even if the suit schedule property was a joint family property the defendants, being the karthas of the joint family, were entitled to alienate the property for the beneﬁt of the family. These conclusions of the trial Court are called in question in this revision. It is pertinent to note that the legal notice issued by the ﬁrst respondent/plaintiﬀ itself required defendants 1 and 2 along with their legal heirs to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the registered sale deed in his favour. Further, it is the settled position of law that a party who stakes an existing interest in the property, which is the subject matter of a speciﬁc performance suit, need not wait till the passing of a decree therein for taking steps to protect his interest [SUMTIBAI V/s. PARAS FINANCE CO.[1] and MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED V/s. REGENCY CONVENTION CENTRE AND HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED[2]]. A ‘proper’ party being one whose presence would enable the Court to completely, eﬀectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, the trial Court was not correct in its view that the petitioners were not ‘proper’ parties to the litigation. The petitioners staked a claim in the suit schedule property asserting that it was in the nature of joint family property and that their vested interests therein would be adversely aﬀected by the adjudication. In KASTURI V/s. IYYAMPERUMAL[3], the Supreme Court held that a person who has a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit may be impleaded as a proper party on an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The trial Court therefore necessarily had to examine their plea in this regard before deciding the entitlement of the plaintiﬀ to claim speciﬁc performance of the sale agreement in respect of the entire suit schedule property. Further, it would be in the interest of the ﬁrst respondent/plaintiﬀ that the petitioners be made party to the litigation so that the matter could be decided comprehensively and conclusively. Viewed thus, the order of the trial Court denying audience to the petitioners is liable to be set aside and is accordingly so done. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed directing the impleadment of the petitioners herein as defendants 3 to 7 in the suit. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 3RD DECEMBER, 2011. PGS/VGSR [1] (2007) 10 SCC 82 [2] (2010) 7 SCC 417 [3] (2005) 6 SCC 733