O R D E R

This civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.48 of 2015 dated 17.06.2022 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Karur.

Facts:-

2. The suit in O.S.No.48 of 2015 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for the following reliefs:-

(a) directing the first defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance of the suit sale agreement dated 08.02.2013, after receipt of the balance sale consideration within a period fixed therefor by the Court, failing which, permitting the plaintiff to get the sale deed be executed and get possession of the suit property through process of Court; and, (b) in the event of this Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of the suit contract of sale dated 08.02.2013, then pass an alternative remedy directing the first defendant to refund the advance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 08.02.2013 till date of realization of the entire decree amount; and, (c)creating a charge over the suit property till the realization of the entire decree amount; and, (d) directing the second defendant to divide the suit properties into 2 equal share by metes and bounds with reference to good and bad nature of the soil and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and put him in separate possession over the same; and (e) granting such other and further reliefs.

During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioners/third parties took out an application in I.A.No.01 of 2020 to implead themselves as necessary parties in above suit. In the petition averments, the revision petitioners have submitted that the suit property is an undivided property. While so, the petitioners came to know about the sale agreement, dated 08.02.2013, executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant. Since the suit properties are ancestral properties, the petitioners herein have 1/6th share in the suit properties. Therefore, they are necessary parties in the suit to preserve their right of share in the suit property. The said petition was resisted by the plaintiff by stating in their counter statement that with an intention to deprive the rights of the plaintiff in the suit properties, the present petition is filed and the petitioners have no share in the suit property muchless than 1/6th share and the claim of the petitioners that the suit agreement is not binding on them, is incorrect. The trial Court after considering the averments made in the petition and in the counter affidavit and also considering the arguments advanced by the respective counsel, dismissed the above application by stating that it is not established by the petitioners that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the petitioners and therefore, they are not necessary parties to the suit. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that without considering the minor share in the suit property as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the above application. It is further submitted that if the petitioners are not impleaded in the suit, they will be put to irreparable loss. The first respondent/plaintiff has no right to execute any sale agreement including the share of the revision petitioners and the first respondent cannot get a decree behind the back of the revision petitioners. It is further submitted that the suit is not only for the relief of specific performance, but also for the relief of partition and in such circumstances, all the sharers should be made as parties to the suit. Therefore, the trial Court without considering the above facts simply dismissed the application by stating that the said application is filed in collusion with the defendants/respondent 2 and 3 at belated stage. It is further submi