A party with a direct interest in the outcome of litigation may be regarded as a necessary party for impleadment in a suit for specific performance despite not being a party to the original agreement.

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking his impleadment in O.S.No.232 of 2023. The respondents 1 and 2 are seeking specific performance in O.S.No.232 of 2023. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit for specific performance against the respondents 3 to 5 in O.S.No.232 of 2023 on the ground that they entered into agreement with the respondents 3 to 5 on 22.09.2020 agreeing to purchase the suit property. The petitioner herein filed an instant application in I.A.No.5 of 2023 seeking his impleadment. According to the petitioner, he entered into registered agreement with respondents 3 to 5 for purchase of certain properties on 07.03.2022 and he filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.232 of 2022 on the file of Additional District Court, Dharmapuri and the suit is pending.

2. It is not in dispute that the suit property, which is the subject matter of the agreement in both the suits is owned by respondents 3 to 5. They claim right over the said property under registered settlement deed of the year 2011.

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondents 1 and 2 colluding with respondents 3 to 5 filed a counter blast suit in O.S.No.232 of 2023 just to defeat the rights of the petitioner in O.S.No.232 of 2022. Since the petitioner is agreement holder under the respondents 3 to 5, vendors of the present plaintiff, the instant application has been filed seeking his impleadment as a party. The trial Court by impugned order dismissed the application.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondents colluded together and filed a suit in O.S.No.232 of 2023 based on unregistered agreement dated 22.09.2020. The learned counsel further submitted that the sale agreement in favour of the petitioner dated 07.03.2022 is registered document and just to defeat the rights of the petitioner, the respondent created unregistered sale agreement dated 22.09.2020 and laid a subsequent suit. Therefore, his presence is absolutely necessary in the second suit filed by the respondents 1 and 2.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner is not a party to the sale agreement and in a suit for specific performance, the 3^rd party who is not a party to the agreement need not to be impleaded.

6. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kasthuri Vs. Iyyamperumal reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 5 would submit that he is contesting both the suits for specific performance filed by the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2.

8. The learned counsel by drawing attention of this Court to the written statement filed by him in O.S.No.232 of 2023 would submit that the agreement in the present suit was created by the present plaintiffs in order to settle the suit in O.S.No.232 of 2022.

9. It is settled law that only parties to the agreement are necessary parties in a suit for specific performance and in normal circumstances a stranger who is not a party to the agreement need not be impleaded. However, in the peculiar circumstances, the petitioner as well as the respondents 1 and 2 claiming themselves as agreement holder under very same persons namely the respondents 3 to 5. The petitioner is claiming under registered sale agreement entered with the respondents 3 to 5 dated 07.03.2022. The respondents 1 and 2 are claiming right under unregistered agreement dated 22.09.2020 entered into with respondents 3 to 5. In other words, the pe