The court upheld the trial court's decision permitting amendment, determining that transferred property holders supersede the original titleholder's interest in the suit for money.

JUDGMENT

This original petition has been filed by the 1^st defendant in a suit for money charged on the plaint schedule property. Suit is based on an agreement for sale. There is no prayer for specific performance of the agreement. The plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint by impleading the transferees from the petitioner/1^st defendant. This was objected by the 1^st defendant contending that their presence is not required for determination of the suit. The trial court allowed the application for amendment and the impleading petition. The above orders are challenged. In the suit, though for money (return of advance money), there is a prayer for a charge decree against the property which was agreed to be sold. Admittedly, the said property has been transferred.

As such, the 1^st defendant is no longer the title holder of the property and will not be interested, more than the transferees.

In the above circumstances, I do not find anything wrong in the orders that have now been passed. No grounds made out. The original petition is dismissed.

Sd/-