Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral) - The revision petition canvasses for an order of impleadment at the instance of a third party in a suit for specific performance that he held an agreement of sale earlier in point of time and he should be impleaded. In this case, he has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement in his favour and the same is pending. While an earlier agreement holder can seek for the subsequent holder of interest as a party in view of the Section 19 of the Specific Performance Act that a subsequent purchaser or a person, who have/owns interest of specific transaction, would require to be added to secure a binding degree, there is no requirement for an agreement holder to take notice of any earlier transaction said to have been made by the vendor. He takes his risk and would set only such right as his vendor had. For the same reason, even a person, who claims that he held an earlier agreement, cannot be brought as a party in a specific performance suit.

2. It is axiomatic that a suit for specific performance is not a suit on title. The Court shall not complicate itself by adjudicating on title relating to the property which was the subject of an agreement of sale. The plaintiff who proceeds in an agreement will be able to obtain an enforcement whatever defect with the title that the vendor had. It is also possible for the plaintiff to seek for revocation of his own agreement and seek for damages. However, he need not allow a third party, who holds an earlier agreement, to be brought on record and for a Court to adjudicate which agreement will prevail. A Court deciding a claim for specific performance cannot adjudicate on the enforcement of an earlier agreement. To that extent it will cause an embarrassment in trial and will judge an issue which is the subject of independent adjudication in a suit said to have been filed by the petitioner himself for enforcement of the same. By his impleadment, he is trying to make possible two independent adjudications; one in his own suit for specific performance which he claims to have file and second in a suit for a specific performance filed at the instance of the plaintiff. It shall also result in conflict of judgments.

3. The best that the plaintiff can plead is to apply to a competent Court for consideration of both the suits filed for enforcement of specific performance in respect of same property against the same vendor simultaneously to avoid conflict in views. The counsel appearing for the respondents 1and 2 points out that there was a prayer for consolidation of two suits by the petitioner himself but later it was not pressed. The petitioner will not be barred from moving yet another application. If such application is moved, the Court shall consolidate both the suits and take the suits simultaneously but deal with judgments separately.

4. The learned counsel refers to me a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumtibai and others v. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar, [ 2007(4) Law Herald (SC) 3201 : 2007 (10) SCC 82] : (2007(4) RCR (Civil) 524 to contend that a third party could be impleaded in a suit for specific performance where the said party shows similar title of interest. An agreement creates no agreement in property except equitable rights of enforcement. The judgment cannot be applied in a situation where there is not even a claim to title is made but merely an agreement is set up. In any event, there is a considerable body of authority to the effect that in a suit for specific performance, the issue of title is irrelevant. The dismissal of the application for impleadment by the Court below is, therefore, perfectly in order and there could be no intervention in revision.

5. The revision petition is dismissed.