Alagar vs Sakthivel and Others

T. Raja, J.—The present Civil Revision Petition is directed against the decree-holder by order dated 17.07.2007, passed by the learned

Principal District Munsif, Dindigul in I.A. No. 55 of 2007 in O.S. No. 274 of 2004 seeking to impaled the civil revision Petitioner as the fifth

Defendant in the suit on the ground that he had entered into a sale agreement with the second Respondent on 22.12.1997, by paying an amount of

Rs. 24,000/-and Rs. 23,000/-towards advance for Plot Nos. 5 and 6. Subsequent to the above transaction, the revision Petitioner was put in

possession of the land, for which, the suit was filed for specific performance.

It was further contended by the revision Petitioner that the Petitioner after paying the above mentioned amounts towards the cost of plot Nos. 5

and 6 has also constructed a house in the said property, therefore, the Petitioner should be impleaded as one of the necessary parties in the suit

filed by the Plaintiff, namely, the first Respondent herein. It was also further contended that for any reason, the suit for specific performance decree

in favor of the Plaintiff, who is arrayed as a first Respondent herein and in order to avoid further multiplicity of proceedings, it is fair and just to

implead the Petitioner as fifth Defendant in the pending suit for specific performance. On that basis, he prayed for allowing the impalement

application by setting aside the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/first Respondent, submitted that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the

first Defendant in pursuant to the agreement dated 28.06.1999. As per the agreement, the first Defendant agreed to execute the sale deed in favor

of the Plaintiff/first Respondent herein on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-towards the suit land. Subsequent to the agreement dated 28.06.1999, out of

Rs. 1,00,000/-the Plaintiff/first Respondent herein admittedly paid Rs. 40,000/-and only when the Plaintiff was about to make a balance of Rs.

60,000/-, the first Defendant in the suit evaded from receiving the above said amount; as a result, the Plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for

specific performance of the contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant. Therefore, it was contended that except as per Section 54 of Transfer of

Property Act, no one else can claim any right in a suit property. The revision Petitioner is only an agreement holder even according to him and

without imp leading the third party before the civil Court, the Petitioner can mark his sale agreement without imp leading the subsequent purchaser.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff/1st Respondent herein by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kasturi Vs.

Iyyamperumal and Others, contended that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, the lis between the Plaintiff and the Defendants

alone can be gone into and therefore, it is not open to the Court to decide whether the strangers have acquired any title and possession of the

contracted property as that would not be germane for decision in the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale, that is to say, in a suit

for specific performance of the contract for sale, the controversy to be decided raised by the parties can only be adjudicated upon, and in such a

lis, the Court cannot decide the question of title and possession of the strangers relating to the contracted property.

In the above said judgment, as it has been held that the strangers to the contract are neither necessary nor proper parties and therefore, not

entitled to join as party-Defendants in the suit for specific performance of contract for sale, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, which

holds that the petition to implead the third party is one of the tactics adopted by the 1st Defendant. Further, the alleged agreement dated

22.12.1997 reached between the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent herein also has not been till date registered.

In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer made by the Petitioner in the present civil revision petition and

accordingly, this Court, finding no merits in the civil revision petition, dismisses the same. Since the matter is pending for quite long time i.e., for the

last six years, this Court directs the trial Court to dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

No costs. Consequently, connected M.P(MD) No. 1 of 2007 is also dismissed.