The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a suit for specific performance, the impleadment of parties claiming under the vendors of the Plaintiff is necessary, and the amendment seeking such impleadment should be allowed.

Dr. Chandrachud, J.

With the consent of learned Counsel for the Appellants and the Respondents, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

Counsel for Respondents 1 to 7, 9 to 28 & 50 to 55 waives service.

2. The appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 18 April 2012 by which the Chamber Summons that was taken out by the Appellants, who were the original Plaintiffs, for the amendment of a plaint in a suit for specific performance has been dismissed.

3. The Appellants instituted a suit in July 2011 seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 7 December 1984 under which Respondents 1 to 28 agreed to sell the suit property to the Appellants. The Appellants claimed that in pursuance of the agreement, they were put in possession of the property and paid an amount of Rs.50.33 lakhs to Respondents 1 to 28. The Appellants also claimed to have prosecuted three suits pending in the City Civil Court at their own costs and expenses. According to the Appellants, they have incurred expenses in the amount of approximately Rs.2 crores towards the litigation. On 16 February 2010, 1 December 2010 and 15 December 2010, Respondents 1 to 28 are alleged to have executed deeds of conveyance along with Respondents 29 to 49 in favour of Respondents 50 to 55. The Appellants filed a Chamber Summons for impleading Respondents 29 to 55 as Defendants to the suit and for amendment of the plaint. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order came to the conclusion that by the amendment, the suit for specific performance would be converted to a suit on title in respect of the immovable property. In the view of the learned Single Judge, the question to be decided in a suit for specific performance is the enforceability of the contract entered into between the parties to the contract and the addition of parties as sought would convert the suit for specific performance into a suit on title, involving strangers to the contract. The learned Single Judge has, inter alia, observed as follows:-

“Ultimately, if the Plaintiffs succeed in the suit, each one of these parties who are stated to be vendors and from whom the Plaintiffs have purchased the property and such persons who derived title from such vendors will all be directed to join in so as to convey the right, title and interest in the immovable property which is subject matter of the Agreement for Sale.”

The Chamber Summons has been allowed only to permit the impleadment of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Defendant no.8 but has been rejected as for the rest.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits taht: (i) Section 19(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 specifically states that performance of a contract may be enforced against either party thereto, and under clause (b) against any person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract; (ii) The Appellants have sought the impleadment of persons who claim a title arising subsequently through the vendors of the Appellants. Moreover, the case of the Appellants is that the proposed Respondents had notice of the agreement between the Appellants and Respondents 1 to 28; (iii) The impleadment of the proposed Respondents was thus within the purview of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as the proposed Respondents are necessary parties to the suit for specific performance. The Appellants seek relief to the effect that Respondents 29 to 55 must join with the vendors of the Appellants in conveying title to the property in favour of the Appellants. In other words, according to the Appellants, Respondents 29 to 55 claim under their vendors and have not set up an independent title, adverse to the vendors of the Appellants. Hence, it was urged that the amendment was necessary and the Chamber Summons ought to have been allowed.

5. On the other h