Strangers claiming joint ownership of the disputed property are not entitled to be impleaded as parties in a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale.

S.S.Kang, J.

1. Whether in a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale a third person claiming to be the joint owner of the subject matter of the dispute, is entitled to be impleaded as a defendant, is the meaningful question raised in this revision pertition.

2. The factual backdrop will help to delineate the pristinely legal controversy -

Satish Kumar and Surinder Kumar filed a suit for possession by specific performance of vacant plot of land, measuring 754 square yards situated in Amritsar against Lalit Kishore and Jagdish Chand, defendants 1 and 2, respectively, on the allegations that the latter had entered into agreement with the plaintiffs for the sale of the above mentioned property.

Chand Kishore and Tilak Raj, who are brothers of defendants 1 and 2 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, for being impleaded as a party on the ground that the property, in dispute, had been inherited by them and their two brothers, defednants 1 and 2 in equal shares. They were co-owners of the land, in dispute. They should be impleaded as defendants.

The application was resisted by the plaintiffs. They challenged the applicants locus standi to move the application. It was contended that the application was filed mala fide with the sole object of delaying the decision of the suit. The evidence of the plaintiffs and defendants have been recorded and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. The plaintiffs did not claim any relief against the applicants. The learned trial judge rejected the application on three grounds namely :-

(i) that the plaintiffs did not claim any relief against the applicants;

(ii) that any decree, if passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants will not bind the applicants; and

(iii) that the applicants know about the pendency of the suit, which was pending since 26th February, 1981, and the application had been filed at a belated stage.

Aggrieved, Chand Kishore and Tilak Raj have filed this revision.

3 Shri Avinash Chander, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that the petitioners were co-sharers of the land, in dispute. They were not on good terms with defendants 1 and 2. They did not know about the agreement for sale or the pendency of the suit. They wanted to safeguard their interest.

4. The revision petition has to be dismissed and the answer to the question framed in the beginning has to be recorded in the negative in view of the authoritative pronouncement of a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Panne Khushali and another v. Jeewanlal Mathoo and another, A.I.R 1976 M.P. 148, wherein it has been observed:-

"Strangers to the countract making a claim adverse to the title of the defendant (vendor) contending that they are the co-owners of the contracted property are neither necessary nor proper party and are, therefore, not entitled to be joined as parties to the suit.

5. Consequently, the revision is dismissed, with costs, which are assessed at Rs. 100/-.

6. Parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial court on January 18, 1984.