In a suit for specific performance, the dispute is between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no scope for impleadment of a third party.

The defendant has preferred this revision against the order of the learned Trial Judge in allowing the I.A.,to implead the first respondent herein, a third party, as the second defendant in the suit.

2. The first respondent/third party filed the I.A., to implead him as the second defendant in the suit filed by the second respondent/plaintiff as against the revision petitioner/defendant. The suit is for specific performance of the sale agreement alleged to be entered between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiffs case is that one Swaminathan has settled the suit property to the defendant by a settlement deed dated 211. 2004 and the defendant has agreed to sell the suit property on 22. 2005 by a sale consideration of Rs.1,45,600/= and paid the advance of Rs.1,20,000/=. Since the defendant has not executed the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff within the period of three months he has instituted the suit as against the defendant.

3. On the other hand the case of the first respondent/third party is that the said Swaminathan though settled the suit property in favour of the defendant has revoked the settlement deed by a revocation deed dated 1. 2006 since the defendant has not treated him properly who was suffering from leprosy. In such circumstances, the executant Swaminathan has settled the suit property in favour of the first respondent/third party by a release deed dated 11. 2006. Thereafter he is only enjoying the suit property and after effecting mutation of revenue registers, paying tax etc., Therefore he is the absolute owner of the suit property and it has become necessary to implead him in the suit, since the subject matter of the suit property is belonging to him.

4. Learned Trial judge after considering the averments and the submissions made by the learned counsel, allowed the application holding that since the third party is having relevant documents and has been paying the tax after transfer of patta in his name, he is a necessary party to the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision has been filed by the defendant.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that by allowing the implead application the first respondent has been permitted to convert the suit filed for specific performance as a suit for declaration without paying any court fees and that too as a defendant. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that in a suit for specific performance as to the enforceability of the agreement, the dispute is between the plaintiff and the defendant who are vendor and vendee and there is no scope for impleadment of the third party in the suit.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2813, wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

"In a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale the lis between the appellant-purchaser and the respondent-vendor shall only be gone into and it is also not open to the court to decide whether the third party have acquired any title and possession of the contracted property as that would not be germane for decision in the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale. Two tests by which a person who is seeking addition in a pending suit for specific performance of the contract for sale must be satisfied. Two tests are-(1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party. Applying the said two tests in the present case, the third party or strangers to contract are not necessary parties as effective decree could be passed in their absence as they had not purchased the contracted property from the vendor after the contract was entered into. They were also not necessary parties as they would not be affected by the contract entered into between