ORDER :

Chillakur Sumalatha, J.

1. This is an application filed seeking the Court to permit the petitioners/proposed parties to come on record as respondent Nos. 10 and 11 to the appeal.

2. Heard Ms. P. Krishna Keertana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 to 13.

3. Making her submission, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule property and thus, as their interest is involved, they may be permitted to come on record as parties to the appeal.

4. Vehemently opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who are the appellants to the appeal, states that the petitioners are neither necessary parties nor proper parties to the appeal and therefore, this application is not maintainable.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 to 13 submits that the petitioners are not the subsequent purchasers. Learned counsel states that indeed, an interim order was granted restraining the appellants from alienating the property to third parties and in the case on hand, even as per the version of the petitioners, they are not the subsequent purchasers. Learned counsel submits that in a suit for specific performance, the subsequent parties can neither be necessary parties nor proper parties and thus, the application is not maintainable.

6. In the affidavit given in support of the application, petitioner No. 1/proposed party No. 1 states that the present appeal is filed in respect of the agricultural land admeasuring Acs. 8.31 guntas in Survey No. 27 of Chinna Gottimukla Village, agricultural land admeasuring Acs. 2.25 guntas in Survey No. 319, agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 0.17 guntas in Survey No. 323 and agricultural land admeasuring Acs. 4.10 guntas in Survey No. 322, all located at Peddagottimukla Village, which is referred as plaint 'A' schedule property and also in respect of land admeasuring Acs. 11.06 guntas in Survey No. 321 located at Peddagottimukla Village, which is referred as plaint 'B' schedule property. He stated that the appellants approached them by stating that they would alienate the entire property and therefore, himself and proposed party No. 2 agreed to purchase the said property and paid advance. Subsequently, they came to know that the lands agreed to be sold to them are in dispute and that, First Appeal is pending before this Court. Thus, they are proper and necessary parties to the appeal and therefore, they may be permitted to come on record as respondent Nos. 10 and 11 to the appeal.

7. Thus, by the contents of the affidavit, it is clear that title did not pass to the proposed parties in respect of the suit schedule property. Their own version is that there is an agreement of sale of the alleged property between them and the appellants.

8. Though making her submission that the parties for getting their rights protected, are entitled to come on record, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others AIR 1958 SC 886, nowhere in the said decision, it is indicated that in an appeal which is based on the suit for specific performance, the subsequent agreement holders are necessary parties.

9. Admittedly, a necessary party is a party in whose absence no effective decree can be passed by the Court of law.

10. Making a submission that a stranger to the contract cannot become a necessary party in a suit for specific performance and to the appeal which arises therefrom, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and others (2005)6 SCC 733, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 14 of the judgment held as follows:-

"14. Keeping the principles as stated above in min