The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for specific performance can be filed only against the persons who have entered into a sale agreement, and the necessity of parties in a suit for specific performance must be determined based on the guiding principles.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2014 passed in A.S.No.4 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge of Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu, by confirming the Judgment and decree dated 01.02.20211 passed in O.S.No.171 of 2007, on the file of Sub Court, Madurantakam.)

1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking for the relief of specific performance and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner encumbering or alienating the suit property.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that on 18.7.2005, defendants 7 to 10 and the deceased Thirunavukarasu jointly entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff. This document was marked as Ex.A2. A total sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- was fixed under this sale agreement and the entire sale consideration was paid even on the date of the agreement. The further case of the plaintiff is that one of the co-owners, Thirunavukarasu died intestate and his legal representatives are defendants 1 to 6 in the suit.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff was that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and was requesting the defendants to execute the sale deed in his favour. They were evading the execution of the sale deed under some pretext. Left with no other option, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 7.6.2007 calling upon the defendants to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The legal notice was marked as Ex.A3. According to the plaintiff, the defendants neither acted upon the notice nor gave a reply for the same. The plaintiff was therefore constrained to file the suit seeking for the relief of specific performance.

5. During the pendency of the suit, defendants 12 to 14 impleaded themselves in the suit on the ground that they are the legal heirs of one Elumalai Naicker and that they also have a share in the suit property and hence they are necessary parties in the suit. These defendants were given up by the plaintiff in the suit and the same was recorded in the Judgment of the Trial Court.

6. The defendants 1 to 10 filed a written statement. They took a stand that they are not the absolute owners of the suit property and that defendants 12 to 14 are also the co-owners of the property and they have a share in the suit property. They also took a defence that they have not executed the sale agreement and have not received the sale consideration for the suit property. They also took a stand that they were not aware about the legal notice issued by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has approached the Court with delay.

7. The defendants 12 to 14 filed a written statement and they took a stand that they were not parties to the sale agreement and that defendants 1 to 10 do not have the exclusive right over the suit property. In view of the same, they pleaded that the sale agreement is not binding on them and it is unenforceable. Accordingly, they also sought for the dismissal of the suit.

8. Both the Courts below on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, concurrently held against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal.

9. When the Second Appeal was admitted, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:

a) Whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, when parties to the agreement alone have to be added as parties?

b) Whether the non-consideration of DW1's oral evidence has resulted in miscarriage of justice, who had categorically admitted that the suit properties had been allotted to one Shanmuga Naicker which itself proves that the suit property is not a joint family property?

c) Whether the reasoning of the Courts below that Ex.A2