In a suit for specific performance of contract, only the person who executed the agreement to sell can be decreed, irrespective of the vendor's title to the property. Impleading co-owners as appellants in an appeal for specific performance of contract without sufficient reasons is not permissible.

1. - Learned counsel for the respondent submitted an application for early hearing of the writ petition.

2. However, at the request of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself has been heard today itself.

3. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed one Civil Original Suit No. 102/1995 for specific performance of contract dated 20.8.1976 on the ground that defendants agreed to sell property involved in the suit to the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 48,000/- and handed over possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. The defendants did not execute the sale deed, therefore, plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of contract. The suit was decreed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 2, Jodhpur vide judgment and decree dated 5.10.1999. No appeal against the said judgment ana decree dated 5.10.1999 was filed till 2001 and an execution petition No. 4/2001 was submitted by the decree holders in the trial Court. In the trial Court the counsel for judgment-debtors appeared and even on 25.5.2003 informed the Court that judgment-debtors themselves will execute the sale deed in favour of the decree holders, but that was not done for a long period and execution proceedings continued and ultimately on 19.5.2005 the Court directed to get the sale deed registered through Court officer. The judgment-debtors even contested the execution and a detail order was passed by the executing Court on 7.2.2005 for affecting the sale deed registered in favour of the decree holders. The said order of the executing Court dated 7.2.2005 was challenged by preferring revision petition No. 81/2005 before this Court, which was dismissed by this Court on 15.3.2005. It is said that the order dated 15.3.2005 of this Court passed in revision petition No. 81/2005 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and SLP was dismissed. Thereafter, in the year 2005, the same judgment-debtors preferred appeal to challenge the judgment and decree dated 5.10.1999 i.e., after delay of about six years. The petitioner has placed on record the copies of the order-sheets of the judgment-debtors' appeal No. 80/2005. It appears from the first order-sheet that appeal was registered subject to objection of limitation and the limitation has not been condoned by the Court, in this appeal preferred by the judgment-debtors-defendants, the present applicants submitted an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. on 8.8.2005. In the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., the applicants stated that they are also co-owners of the property in dispute. They further submitted that the defendant Rajaram did not execute the agreement to sell as power of attorney and in absence of the applicants, the title of the suit cannot be determined, it is also submitted that the applicants are in possession of the property in dispute and, therefore, they may be impleaded as appellant in the appeal preferred by the judgment-debtors-defendants. The said application was allowed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur vide order dated 3.1.2006.

4. According to learned counsel for the appellants-decree holders the judgment and decree dated 5.10.1999 was passed against the defendants of that suit No. 102/1995 in the year 1999. The execution petition was submitted an the year 2001. In that execution petition, defendants appeared and contested the execution and, thereafter, a detail order was passed by the executing Court on 7.2.2005 and Court appointed the Court officer to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners. The order of the executing Court dated 7.2.2005 was challenged by preferring revision petition which was dismissed and the SLP was also dismissed. Not only this, but defendants themselves after six years preferred regular appeal and, thereafter, the applicants came up with the case that they are co-owner of the property in dispute and their title cannot be determined without impleading them as appellant. According to learned