In a suit for specific performance, a person claiming a title adverse to the vendor is not a necessary party, and a third party can be impleaded if they establish a semblance of title over the property in dispute.

1. The third party in the suit in O.S.No.3 of 2007 before the learned Principal District Judge, Puducherry, filed by the first respondent herein against the second respondent, has come up with the present civil revision petition on dismissal of his application by the said Court to implead himself as a party to the suit.

2. The first respondent has laid the said suit against the second respondent for a direction to the second respondent to transfer the schedule mentioned property to her and for permanent injunction restraining the second respondent from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. It is the case of the first respondent that the second respondent offered to sell the suit property to her and she has paid the sale consideration and the sale deed was engrossed in the stamp paper. However, the second respondent has not executed the sale deed and hence, the said suit has been filed.

3. In the said suit, the petitioner herein has filed an application in I.A.No.28 of 2010 for impleading himself as a party. The claim of the petitioner was that the second respondent has entered into a sale agreement in respect of the suit property with him on 27.9.2004 and received the advance. Pursuant to the same, a sale deed was executed in his favour on 22.10.2007 upon receiving the balance sale consideration and possession was also handed over to him on the said date. Since the first respondent attempted to interfere with his possession and enjoyment over the suit property, he has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the first respondent from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property in O.S.No.131 of 2008 and the same is pending. In the backdrop of the matter, being a bona fide purchaser of the suit property even prior to the institution of the present suit, he shall be impleaded as a party to the said suit.

4. The said application was resisted by the first respondent on the ground that the first respondent herein, who has laid the suit, is a dominus litus, who has to decide as to who has to be added in the suit filed by her and the petitioner herein is not a necessary party. In the said suit, the question that has to be decided is whether there was an agreement of sale between the first respondent and the second respondent and whether it is enforceable.

5. The trial Court, considering the rival submissions, dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner and the present civil revision petition is directed against the said order.

6. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

7. The question that has to be considered is whether the petitioner is a necessary or a proper party. In the decision reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 733 - Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, which has been relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, it has been clearly set out that in a suit for specific performance of a contract, only the parties to the contract or parties claiming under them or a person who had purchased the contracted property from the vendor with or without notice of the contract are necessary parties. However, the person who claims independent title and possession adversely to the title of vendor is not a necessary party since an effective decree can be passed in his absence and no relief can be claimed against such party. In the case on hand, it is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased the property from the second respondent even prior to the filing of the suit. He is not claiming any independent title and possession adversely to the title of the vendor viz., the second respondent.

8.1. The judgment reported in (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 417 : AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 3109 - Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and others, was relied on by the learned