A.R. Sharadamma vs Krishnegowda and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.�The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 16-10-2014 passed on I.A. No. 6 in O.S. No. 259 of 2009. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 259 of 2009. The suit is instituted seeking for a judgment and decree of specific performance against the defendant therein. In the pending suit, the applicants have filed I.A. No. 6 under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking that they be impleaded as additional defendants to the suit. The application was opposed by the plaintiff. The Court below on considering the same has allowed the application by the order impugned herein.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said order would contend that the Court below was not justified in permitting the third parties to be impleaded as parties to a suit seeking judgment and decree of specific performance. It is his case that in a suit for specific performance only the parties to the agreement would be the appropriate parties and no other person could be impleaded. The learned Counsel has also referred to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and Others, and in the case of P.C. Varghese Vs. Devaki Amma Balambika Devi and Others, .

In the light of the contention put forth, I have perused the order impugned and also the petition papers. At the outset, having taken note of the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the position of law is well-settled that a person who is not a party to the agreement need not be impleaded as a party to the suit for specific performance. The consideration in that regard is that a stranger to the agreement on the property should not be made a party to the suit for specific performance.

In that light, if the instant facts are noticed, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance based on the agreement as at Annexure-E to the petition. It is no doubt true that only the defendant to the suit has signed the agreement. However, the applicants who have sought to come on record contend that the property in question is a ancestral property and the originally impleaded defendant does not have right to execute such agreement. It is in that view, the Court below has taken into consideration the contention and has allowed the application. In a suit of the present nature, keeping in view the nature of the right as claimed by the applicants, certainly, they cannot be considered as strangers to the suit if right is claimed over the very same property which is the subject-matter of the agreement. Even if ultimately the agreement is found to be valid, it would be only to the extent of the share of the existing defendant who has signed the agreement executed and the applicants are allowed to remain on record, they would be entitled to bring the same on record. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order, so as to call for interference in a writ petition.

Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit stands disposed of.