R. Subramanian, J.

1. The appellant whose appeal against the dismissal of the suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 2 of 2008 was partly allowed has come by way of this review application. The facts that led to the filing of the above review application are as follows:

2. The appellant, as the plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S. No. 2 of 2008 on the file of the District Court Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 03.07.2006.

3. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had agreed to convey an extent of 1 acre and 10 cents of land in R.S. No. 248/1 at Ootacamund Rural Village. The said suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the agreement was executed as security for certain borrowings.

4. The Trial Court had accepted the plea of the defendants and had dismissed the suit in to. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the plaintiff had preferred the appeal in A.S. No. 701 of 2009 before this Court. The appeal came to be disposed of on 05.10.2012 by this Court. While concluding that the agreement is true and valid and that the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance, this Court had decreed the suit in respect of the remaining property after excluding portions of the property which were sold away by the defendants anterior to the filing of the suit. Sub-Paragraph 1 of paragraph-35 of the judgment of this Court dated 05.10.2012 reads as follows:

"Ex.A1 is held to be an agreement to sell in stric-to-sensu. By virtue of Section 12(3) (d) of the Specific Relief Act, the Court is enjoined to enforce specific performance in respect of the part of the suit property available for specific performance excluding the portions already sold by the defendants anterior to the filing of the suit."

The exclusion of the portion of the property which was sold prior to the filing of the suit, has triggered the present review petition.

5. I have heard Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. According to the learned counsel, this Court having found that the suit agreement is an agreement of sale and it could be specifically enforced ought not to have excluded the property that was sold by the defendants after the agreement, prior to the filing of the suit. Pointing out that, this Court had remitted the appeal for enabling the Trial Court to carry out the mandate of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act by appointing a Commissioner to find out the extent of the property that was sold anterior to the suit, the learned counsel would contend that, the Court should have given the appellant liberty to file applications for impleading the subsequent purchaser and test their bona-fides. The question that would arise is what are the rights of alienees from the defendants after the agreement before the filing of the suit. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, makes it clear that the agreement by itself does not create any interest or charge over the property. Therefore, the title to the property remains with the vendor and he is capable of transferring the said title. However, such transfer will be subject to the right of the purchaser, who claims specific performance.

6. The above position of law was clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lala Durga Prasad and Another vs. Lala Deep Chand and Others, reported in AIR 1954 SC 75, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the form of decree to be passed in a suit for specific performance where there are alienations between the date of the agreement and the date of the suit, taking note of the principle law, that an agreement of sale by itself does not confer title in the immovable property, observed as follows:

"The proper form of decree is to direct specific performance of the contract between the vendor and the plaintiff and direct the subsequent transferee to join in the conveyance so as to pass on the title which resides in him to the plaintiff."

(Emphasis supplied)

7. Thus it could be seen that subsequen