1. By way of this writ petition, the plaintiff of a suit for specific performance [O.S. No.73 of 2013 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Muddebihal], has questioned the order dated 02.03.2015 passed on an interlocutory application [I.A. No. I], whereby the prayer made by the respondent Nos.2 to 17 seeking to be impleaded as party defendants in the said suit has been allowed by the Trial Court on the ground that they are necessary parties to the suit.

2. In the suit aforesaid, the plaintiff-petitioner has sought a decree against the sole defendant-respondent No. 1 for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 16.10.2008 in respect of the suit land which, according to the plaintiff-petitioner, was allotted to the husband of the defendant in family partition under the registered partition deed dated 27.10.1970; and the defendant, being the sole heir, succeeded to the suit land on the demise of her husband on 18.09.2002. The plaintiff has alleged that the suit land was agreed to be sold by the defendant-respondent No. 1, as being the absolute owner thereof, for a consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-; and the plaintiff petitioner paid an amount of Rs.5,75,000/-towards earnest money. It is alleged that when the plaintiff-petitioner insisted on the defendant-respondent No. 1 to receive the balance consideration and to execute the sale deed, she avoided and finally refused to do so on 23.10.2013.

3. Interestingly, the defendant, in her written statement, has admitted the relevant plaint averments and has agreed to receive the balance amount of Rs.4,25,000/-and to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. Subsequently, on 01.01.2014, the parties filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

4. As things stood thus, on the same day, i.e., on 01.01.2014, the applicants-respondent Nos.2 to 17 filed I.A. No. I in this suit, seeking impleadment as defendants, while alleging that they were co-sharers in the property in question; that the plaintiff and defendant have colluded to dupe them; and that the partition deed was ‘false’ and ‘baseless’ that had never been acted upon.

5. The Trial Court has purportedly accepted the contentions canvassed on behalf of the applicants; and has allowed the application for impleadment by the impugned order dated 02.03.2015. The relevant part of order as passed by the Trial Court shall be referred hereafter, a little later.

6. Assailing the order aforesaid, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has strenuously argued that intervention of third parties in a suit for specific performance to adjudicate upon their alleged title to the suit property is outside the scope of the suit; and on the settled legal principles, the applicants-respondent Nos. 2 to 17 could not have been joined as parties to this suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal & Others: (2005) 6 SCC 733.

7. Per contra, while supporting the order impugned, learned counsel for the applicants-respondent No. 2 to 17 has argued that the suit schedule property having not been partitioned and the applicants being the co-sharers therein, have rightly been ordered to be impleded as parties to this suit. It has also been argued that the defendant has colluded with the plaintiff as is apparent from the admission made in the written statement and compromise deed presented before the Court; and in the given circumstances, the applicants were required to join the suit so as to protect their interest in the suit property. Learned counsel has attempted to distinguish the decision in Kasturi (supra) with the submissions that therein, the proposed interveners were not the members of the family and were not the co-sharers and hence, they were treated to be the persons claiming adverse to the title of the vendor. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has relied upon the decisions of Supreme Court in Sumtibai & Other