The prior purchasers of the property are necessary and proper parties to a suit for specific performance.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 05.01.2022 passed on I.A. No. 3 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) in O.S. No. 198/2020 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) whereby the I.A. No. 3 was allowed.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that late Sri. Mariyappa S/o Late Sri. Puttegowda, the father of defendant Nos. 1 to 5 & father-in-law of defendant No. 6 & grand father of defendant Nos. 7 & 8, has executed an agreement of sale dated 10.06.2016 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 108 measuring 2 acre 1 guntas situated at Machohalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.

4. It is averred that after the death of Sri. Mariyappa, the defendant Nos. 1 to 8, being the legal heirs, have become the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property. The legal heirs have refused to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of the contract. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent Nos. 9 to 53 herein have filed an application i.e. I.A. No. 3 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to come on record as defendant Nos. 9 to 53 in the suit and the same came to be allowed.

5. Sri. Sridhar N. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has committed grave error in allowing I.A. No. 3 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC. The proposed defendants are not parties to the agreement of sale dated 10.06.2016 and the suit being one for specific performance, the proposed defendants are neither necessary nor proper parties. The proposed defendants are claiming that they are the purchasers of sites carved out from the suit schedule property. However, in the sale deed there is no description about the Sy. No. 108 of Machohalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and further assertion that a layout has been formed after obtaining permission and they are in possession of the suit schedule property is without any basis.

6. It is submitted that the suit schedule property is an agricultural land, which comes under the green zone in Arkavathi and Thipagondanahalli valley basin and the said land is not converted for residential purpose and the contrary contentions are without any basis. It is further submitted that a third party to the contract is not necessary and proper party to the suit for specific performance of the contract. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions:

(i) Baluram vs. P. Chellathangam and Others, AIR 2015 SC 1264

(ii) Gurmit Singh Bhatia vs. Kiran Kant Robinson and Others, AIR 2019 SC 3577

(iii) Rashmi alias Uma Surir Anurshettar vs. Prema Kiran Anurshettar and Others, 2020 (5) KCCR 586

7. Sri. M.V. Sridhar Chakravarthi, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents supports the impugned order and submits that the original land owner Sri. Mylaraiah, has sold the suit schedule property through two sale deeds dated 04.11.1991 and 05.04.1993 to one Smt. Kamalamma and the revenue records were mutated in the name of Smt.Kamalamma. The said Smt. Kamalamma has sold the suit schedule property in favour of Sri. Mariyappa vide registered sale deed dated 30.10.1996 and the revenue records were mutated in the name of Sri. Mariyappa, now deceased.

8. It is submitted that Sri. Mariyappa has obtained necessary permissions/sanction plan approved and formed 60 sites in the suit schedule property and sold the said sites to the proposed defendant Nos. 9 to 53 and others between 1998 and 2004. The contesting respondents are the bona-fide purchasers of the sites having been in la