1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20/6/2017 passed by the learned trial court in Civil Misc. Application no.41/2014/A thereby refusing to implead the petitioners as defendants in Special Civil Suit No.25/2011/A.

2. The first respondent has filed Special Civil Suit no.25/11/A against the respondents no.2 to 9 for specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of the property known as “Nanorem or Naikiniche Bata” surveyed under no.156/1 approximately admeasuring 4,10,296 sq.mtrs. under no.156/1 along with an existing house, more specifically described in para 8 of the plaint. That suit is pending before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Mapusa. The petitioners filed an application for their impleadment as party defendants in the suit purportedly under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code, for short). It was contended that the petitioners are the co -owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with the respondents no.2 to 9 who are the defendants in the suit. It was contended that the petitioners are presently residing in Surat from the time the petitioner no.1 got married with the petitioner no.2. The petitioners have then set out the details under which they are claiming to be the co owners of the suit property. It was contended that the consideration of Rs.50.00 lakhs is also inadequate as the property is worth approximately Rs.124 crores. It was contended that there is collusion between the original defendant no.1 and the other defendants interse, and as such, the petitioners are entitled to be joined as party defendants to the suit.

3. The application was opposed on behalf of the respondent no.1/plaintiff on the ground that a third party has no locus standi to get impleaded in a suit for specific performance. It was contended that that the defendants in their written statement filed in the suit have not mentioned about the petitioner no.1 being the daughter of Padam Singh and the petitioners have now suddenly surfaced and filed an application in order to cause prejudice to the respondent no.1. It was contended that the respondent no.1 in his capacity as a plaintiff is entitled to choose who should be made parties to the suit.

4. The learned trial court has found that a third party who is a stranger to the agreement cannot seek impleadment in a suit for specific performance on the ground that they are co-owners. It has been held that such co -owners, who are not parties to the agreement, are neither necessary nor proper parties to determine the controversy in the suit. In that view of the matter the application came to be rejected.

5. I have heard Shri Desai, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Agni, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record.

6. Shri Desai, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in Inventory proceedings the petitioner no.1 has been held to be a coowner of the suit property to the extent of 1/8th share. It is thus submitted that the petitioner no.1 and her husband would be necessary parties to the suit. The learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the genealogy starting from the original owner, Manuel Noronha, who died on 9/7/1945 in order to demonstrate that the petitioner no.1 who is the Great Grand Daughter in-law of Manuel Noronha has a share in the suit property. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code in order to urge that the petitioners will have a share and are co owners of the suit property along with respondents no.2 to 9. On behalf of the petitioners reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prem Kaliaandas Daryanani Vs. Natvarlal C. Modi & others 2015 (4) ALL MR 346, in order to submit that the petitioners would be necessary parties to the suit. In the alternative it is submitted t