The main legal point established in the judgment is that unregistered agreements to sell do not confer ownership rights in immovable property, and the validity of such agreements is determined by the legal provisions and judgments cited by the court.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral). - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 24th February 2021, passed by the Id. ADJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, by which the application filed by the Petitioner herein, under Order I Rule 10 CPC has been rejected by the Trial Court.

3. The brief background of the matter is that a suit for partition was filed in respect of the property bearing no. C-2/21, Malka Ganj, Delhi -17 {hereinafter, "suit property ") by the Plaintiff in the suit/ Respondent No. 1 herein. Respondent No. 2 herein is the Defendant in the suit. It is the admitted position between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Plaintiff owns l/3rd share of the suit property and the Defendant owns 2/3rd share in the same. However, the case of the Applicant/Petitioner herein is that the Defendant in the suit has sold his share of the property to the Petitioner. Accordingly, in view of the fact that the interest of the Petitioner could be affected in the said suit proceedings, the Petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, for impleadment as a necessary party, which has been rejected by the Trial Court. Hence this present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the CPC.

4. Mr. Singh, Id. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the Written Statement, the Defendant admits the fact that sale has taken place. He places specific reliance on paragraph 13 of the Written Statement filed before the Trial Court, which reads as under:

"That the contents of the para under reply are admitted to the extent that the defendant has already sold his 2/3rd undivided share in the entire 1st Floor with its roof rights fupto sky) in the suit property to one Smt. Rajbala Galoria, W/o Sh. Jai Hind Galoria, R/o 94, Nehru Kutia, Malkaganj, Delhi-07 on 21.03.2018."

5. Ld. Counsel submits that his client's interest would be severely prejudiced if a decree for partition is passed behind his back, inasmuch as he has an interest in the suit property and, therefore, he would be a proper party to the suit.

6. He relies upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in CM. V. Krishnamachari vs M.D. Dhanalakshmi Ammal And Ors. [(1966) 2 MLJ 298], where the Court has specifically held that though a suit for specific performance in certain circumstances may be pending, since the Petitioner has an interest in the property, he is entitled to be impleaded in a suit concerning the said property.

7. Mr. Aneja, Id. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff in the suit, on the other hand, submits that the Petitioner does not have any registered agreement or instrument in his favour. In fact, the Defendant, who is stated to be the vendor of the Petitioner, has stated in the reply to the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, that the Petitioner was put in possession only for the purposes of carrying out repairs and renovation, and only bayana payment was given. The same has also been forfeited as the Petitioner has violated the terms of the Agreement to Sell. He relies upon the following paragraphs of the reply filed by the Defendant in the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before the Trial Court:

"1. That the contents of the para under reply no reply being matter of record.

2. That the contents of para under reply are denied as sated. It is most respectfully submitted that only an agreement to sell was entered into between the applicant and the answering defendant on the payment of bayana for the sale of the share of the defendant in the suit property.

The applicant was put in possession only for the purpose of carrying out repairs and renovation however, the applicant failed to perform her part obligation and arrange payment within the agreed time and hence the bayana payment was forfeited and now she is in unauthorized occupation of the part of the suit property and liable to be evicted from the same. The defendant reserves his right to initiate appropr