The plaintiff's assertion of readiness and willingness in specific performance claims must be continuous and substantiated; the burden lies on the party contesting the agreement's legitimacy.

JUDGMENT :

Amarinder Singh Grewal J.

C.M. No.1558-C of 2024

The instant application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading respondents No.9 and 10 as contesting respondents, being necessary parties for just and proper adjudication of the case.

Learned counsel for the applicants-proposed respondents No.9 and 10 submits that the applicants herein had purchased the property on 29.11.2007 being bona fide purchasers against consideration and, therefore, they are necessary party for proper adjudication of the case. It is further submitted that the applicants acted in good faith as they did not have knowledge of prior agreement to sell and thus, they could not be bound by the agreement to sell. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Usha Rani Vs. Shakuntla and others 2025(2) RCR (Civil) 483.

Further reliance is placed upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Awadh (dead) by LRs Vs. Achhairbar Dubey 2000(2) RCR (Civil) 2 and B. Vijaya Bharathi Vs. P. Savitri and others (2018) 11 SCC 761 to contend that plea of readiness and willingness of vendee is available to all defendants in a suit for specific performance including subsequent vendee and vendor itself.

Learned counsel for the applicants-proposed respondents No.9 and 10 also submits that the plaintiff had miserably failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and in support of his contention, relies upon various judicial precedents.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/respondent No.1 submits that a transferee pendente lite is not entitled to come on record as a matter of right and for the said purpose, facts and circumstances of each case should be gone into. There is no absolute rule that such a transferee pendente lite is entitled to come on record as a matter of right. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H. Anjanappa and others Vs. A. Prabhakar and others 2025(1) RCR (Civil) 875.

Heard.

It is admitted fact that the agreement to sell in question was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, who alienated the different parcels of suit property in favour of defendants Nos.2 and 8 vide sale deeds No.944, 945 and 946 on the same date i.e. 21.08.2006. The present suit was registered as Suit No.142 dated 09.05.2007 and applicants/proposed respondents No.9 & 10 are stated to have purchased the property on 29.11.2007 i.e. after filing of the suit. Though the vendor and subsequent purchasers were made parties to the suit except vendor-defendant No.1, all remaining defendants i.e. subsequent purchasers remained ex parte and in the appeal before the learned 1st Appellate Court, even vendor-defendant No.1 was also proceeded against ex parte and the appeal was decided only on the submissions of the plaintiff-appellant.

It is not the case that the applicants-proposed respondents No.9 and 10 are purchasers from the vendor-defendant No.1 but they are purchasers from the subsequent purchasers and thus, they have derived title from defendants No.2 to 8, who are purchasers from defendant No.1 i.e. the original vendor, who entered into agreement to sell in question with the plaintiff. There is no dispute to the ratio decidendi culled out from the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants that plea of readiness and willingness is available to all defendants in a suit for specific performance including subsequent vendee and vendor itself. But here before this Court, the position is different. The subsequent purchasers in the present case are defendants No.2 to 8 and they