Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.11.2010, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khanna, vide which application filed by respondents no.2 and 3 under order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Code’) for impleading them as party was allowed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

3. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that an agreement to sell dated 23.6.2004 was executed by respondent no.1- Rai Singh, father of contesting respondents no.2 and 3 in favour of present petitioner-plaintiff for selling the land in dispute. However, as he committed breach in the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell, the present suit for specific performance was filed by petitioner-plaintiff against respondent no.1-defendant. During pendency of the suit, the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code was filed by respondents applicants no.2 and 3, being sons of respondent no.1, for impleading them as party on the plea that the property in dispute is ancestral and coparcenary joint property in the hands of their father, i.e., Rai Singh, and that he is having no right to alienate the same, therefore, it is stated that agreement is not a valid one and hence, they are necessary party to be impleaded.

4. Application was contested by the present petitioner mainly on the ground that respondents-applicants are having no right to restrain their father from alienating the property in dispute and they being strangers to the agreement are not necessary party to be impleaded.

5. However, application was allowed by learned trial Court and respondents no.2 and 3 were ordered to be impleaded as party in the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff.

6. Though the fact that the property in dispute is ancestral in the hands of respondent no.1 has been denied by petitioner-plaintiff and, however, even if it is taken that property is ancestral in the hands of respondent no.1-plaintiff, respondents no.2 and 3, being sons of respondent no.1, are having no right to restrain their father from alienating the property in dispute, being Karta of the Joint Hindu Family. Law on the point has been well settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunil Kumar and another v. Ram Parkash and others, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 576. Relevant paragraph of the same reads as under:-

“26. I do not think that these submissions are sound. It is true that a coparcener takes by birth an interest in the ancestral property, but he is not entitled to separate possession of the coparcenary estate. His rights are not independent of the control of the karta. It would be for the karta to consider the actual pressure on the joint family estate. It would be for him to foresee the danger to be averted. And it would be for him to examine as to how best the joint family estate could be beneficially put into use to subserve the interests of the family. A coparcener cannot interfere in these acts of management. Apart from that, a father- karta in addition to the aforesaid powers of alienation has also the special power to sell or mortgage ancestral property to discharge his antecedent debt which is not tainted with immorality. If there is no such need or benefit, the purchaser takes risk and the right had interest of coparcener will remain unimpaired in the alienated property. No doubt the law confers a right on the coparcener to challenge the alienation made by karta, but that right is not inclusive of the right to obstruct alienation. Nor the right to obstruct alienation could be considered as incidental to the right to challenge the alienation. These are two distinct rights. One is the r