In a suit for specific performance, the necessary parties are the parties to the contract or their legal representatives, and a person who had purchased the property from the vendor after the contract. Strangers to the contract, who claim an independent title, cannot be joined in the suit for specific performance.

Hidayatullah, J—This is an application for revision of the order and the findings given on 25-9-1945 by Mr. S.G. Oke, Second Civil Judge (class II), Nagpur, in civil Suit No. 183A of 1943.

2. The facts of the case are that defendants 1 and 2 (non.ap-plicants 5 and 6) executed an agreement of sale of their house in favour of plaintiffs (non-applicants 1 to 4) on 17-7-1941. In that agreement it was provided that the sale-deed would be executed within the time mentioned in it and that if it was not possible to do so, the time would be extended. It was also provided that if any objection was raised on behalf of Balaji Dumnaji Koshti defendants 1 and 2 would be responsible. There were other provisions for damages in case of breach.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 having failed to implement this agreement, the present suit was launched for specific performance against them. In addition to the relief of the specific performance the plaintiffs claimed possession of the house and in the array of the defendants were included the two widows of Balaji Koshti and possession was also sought against them. It is necessary to examine the pleadings a little closely at this stage. In para. 1 lb) of the plaint added by an amendment it was said:

The entire house, of which the house in suit forms Eastern portion belongs to Banaji (sic.) son of Dumnya Koshti. Half of the Western half portion thereof was in possession of Balaji, the husband of defendants 8 and 4 and the Eastern half was in possession of Banaji. After the death of Banaji 14 years ago, Balaji's (sic.) portion of the house, which is now in dispute, was inherited by his daughter defendant 1 and she has been in possession thereof till the date of cause of action.

It was also stated in the plaint ''Neither Balaji nor defendants 3 and 4 were in possession of the house in suit and never acquired any title to it by adverse possession.''

4. Defendants 3 and 4 (applicants before me) Claimed to be discharged from the suit on the ground that they were not necessary parties and further that they could not properly be joined in this suit for specific performance. The learned trial Judge held that possession was only a consequential relief and as the plaintiffs had alleged collusion between defendants 1 and 2 On the one hand and defendants 8 and 4 on the other it was permissible to join defendants 8 and 4 as defendants in the suit under Order 2, Rule 8, Civil P.C.

5. Against this order the present revision application is filed. Earned Counsel for the non-applicants raised a preliminary objection that revision does not lie because 'no question of jurisdiction is involved. Clearly enough if in a suit for specific performance it is not open to join other causes of action, then the action of the learned trial Judge was clearly without jurisdiction. As I shall show presently the learn, ed Judge's view of the law was erroneous.

6. It has been laid down by the Chancery Court in Tasker v. Small, 1834 4 ER 848 that in a suit for a specific performance it is not permissible to join people who are strangers and whose claim baa to be investigated apart furor the agreement of which specific performance is sought to be claimed. I refer to the following passage from the judgment of the Lord Chancellor Cottenham:

It is not disputed that, generally, to a bill for a specific performance of a contract of sale, the parties to the contract only are the proper parties; and, when the ground of the jurisdiction of Courts of Equity in suits of that kind is considered it could not properly ha otherwise. The Court assumes jurisdiction in such oases, because a Court of law, giving damages only for; the non-performance of the contract in many cases does not afford an adequate remedy. But, in equity, as well as at law, the contract constitutes the right, and regulates the liabilities of the parties; and the object of both proceedings is to place the party complaining as nearly as possible in the same situation as the defendant bad agreed