An agreement to sell does not confer rights for impleadment in legal proceedings; proper remedies must be pursued through a suit for specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

Petitioner-plaintiff has moved this Court by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 08.11.2023, whereby the revision bearing Revision No.59 of 2022-2023, Ramesh Ram vs. Bacchi Ram & others under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari and Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short "the Act") has been rejected and the order passed by learned Assistant Collector, First Class dated 12.10.2022 was affirmed, whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC moved by respondent Nos.1 & 2 has been allowed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. A Revenue Suit No.22 of 2019 was instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff against his brothers-i.e. respondent Nos.3 & 4, in respect of the property of Village Danpur, Tehsil Rudrapur, District U.S. Nagar. In the said revenue suit, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was filed by respondent Nos.1 & 2 on 21.03.2022 to implead as party respondent in the aforesaid revenue suit on the ground that the part of the subject matter in the revenue suit was agreed to be sold out to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 by respondent No.4- defendant and the date of agreement to sale is 14.01.2013 and in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement, a sum of Rs.31,75,000/- was paid to the respondent No.4-defendant. The said application was allowed by learned Magistrate by reason of its order dated 12.10.2022 mainly on the ground that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 has parted with some consideration towards agreement to sale dated 14.01.2013 and on the basis of the principle of natural justice, the application was allowed and they were directed to be made party to the proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 12.10.2022, petitioner-plaintiff moved the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital by filing a Revision No.59 of 2022-2023, which too was rejected by learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division Nainital vide impugned order dated 08.11.2023.

4. It is feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments and orders passed by learned trial court as well as by the learned Revisional court, petitioner before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by merely entering into an agreement to sale with respondent No.4-defendant, no rights and interest have been created in favour of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings. The agreement to sale can only be enforced by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 by bringing a suit for specific performance under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. When the petitioner had not filed any suit against the respondent No.4-defendant for specific performance of the said agreement to sale, it is all the more weakens his case for impleadment in the present suit between the parties.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 submits that the agreement to sale was entered into between the parties on 14.01.2013 much later of execution of the said agreement to sale, the present suit under Section 176 of the Act for partition was filed and the same is collusive in nature, therefore, respondent Nos.1 & 2 has got right to defend their right in respect of the portion of the subject matter of the property, which was agreed to be sold to them by the respondent No.4-defendant. He further submits that in case, in his absence, the suit is decreed and the partition is effected between the parties and the share of respondent No.4-defendant comes to lesser than the land agreed to be sold to him by the respondent No.4-defendant, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 shall be deprived of their right.

7. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, there is no manner of doubt in the mind of this Court that mere executing an agreement to sale would not create any right in favour of the respondent Nos.1 & 2. If, there is no right created in favour of the respondent Nos.1 & 2, there is no question of interfering with the proceedings, which is between the parties under Sect