In a suit for specific performance, parties claiming independent title not based on the contract are not necessary parties, reaffirming the need for clear evidence of title.

ORDER :

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

Questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 19.10.2023 passed in IA.No.1175 of 2022 in OS.No.139 of 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, the present Revision Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for Ms. G.Sindhu, learned counsel on record for revision petitioners, and Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. The petitioners are defendant Nos.1 to 3, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are proposed defendants, respondent No.6 is plaintiff and respondent Nos.7 to 10 are defendant Nos.4 to 7 in the suit. It appears that during pendency of this Revision Petition, respondent No.5 expired and as such, his legal heirs were brought on record as respondent Nos.11 to 13.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No.6 filed the suit in OS.No.139 of 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy for specific performance against the revision petitioners and respondent Nos.7 to 10 herein and the suit was pending adjudication. While so, respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein filed an application in I.A.No.1175 of 2022 to implead themselves as defendants in the suit. In the said application, it was averred that the suit schedule property was purchased by their ancestor by name Jonnada Mallaiah under unregistered sale deed dated 20.04.1958 and that they are in actual physical possession of the suit schedule property; that they have also filed an application before the Revenue Authority for regularisation of the said unregistered sale deed/Sada Bainama and the same is pending adjudication and therefore, they have right and interest in the suit schedule property. They further averred that defendant Nos.1 to 7 without any valid title to the suit schedule property have entered into agreement of sale with third parties and as such, they are necessary parties to the suit since their rights will be affected and hence, prayed to implead them as parties to the suit.

5. The petitioners herein resisted the said application, however, the trial Court vide impugned order dated 19.10.2023 allowed the said application with a condition that the proposed defendants have to confine their version only to the suit pleadings and that they are prohibited to putforth their claim and title, which may change the nature of the suit completely. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that in a suit for specific performance, one has to establish the title of person who entered into agreement of sale in favour of the purchaser, and it is settled principle that third parties are not necessary parties in the light of nature of the suit. He further submitted that the two judgments referred to and relied upon by the trial Court in the impugned order, i.e., judgment of Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sumtibai and others Vs. Paras Finance Company and others , [ (2007) 10 SCC 82 ] and the judgment of High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.1621 of 2022, dated 13.09.2022 (Chinnaswamy Gowda Vs. Shivaramu C.M. and others), the title of the proposed parties therein was clear and therefore, they were permitted to be brought on record. However, in the present case, the proposed defendants are claiming title under unregistered sale deed i.e., Sada bainama which does not confer any title and as such, they have to work out their remedies separately and considering the said aspect, the trial Cou