M.P.MEDAPPA Vs. SHARFUDDIN M.M.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.III in O.S.No.77/2016 dtd. 8/1/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Kodagu - Madikeri, the petitioner/proposed party is before this Court.

(2.) The first respondent has filed the suit seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the second respondent herein. The second respondent's vendor and the petitioner herein have jointly purchased the property of an extent of 18 cents by way of a registered sale deed dtd. 24/8/2007. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no partition between the petitioner and the second respondent's vendor, but the second respondent had executed a sale deed in favour of second respondent dtd. 31/3/2013. Then he had filed the suit in O.S.No.136/2013 seeking declaration that the said sale deed is not binding on him. That suit came to be partly decreed wherein the trial Court has observed that the sale deed dtd. 31/3/2013 is binding on the petitioner herein but the schedule mentioned in the sale deed is not binding on him. Aggrieved thereby, he has preferred RFA No.1145/2017 before this Court and the same is pending consideration. In the meantime, the second respondent herein had executed an agreement of sale in respect of first respondent and the first respondent has filed the suit for specific performance against the second respondent. In that, the petitioner herein had filed an application to implead himself as the second defendant. That application came to be dismissed by the trial Court.

(3.) While dismissing the application the trial Court had considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and Others, AIR 2005 SC 2813. wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of a property instituted by a purchaser against the vendor, a stranger or a third party to the contract, claiming to have an independent title and possession over the contracted property is not entitled to be added as party/defendant in the said suit. Considering the said judgment, the trial Court had observed that the petitioner has already obtained the relief from the Court and he can file FDP proceedings to get his share by metes and bounds and he cannot attempt to creep into the suit filed by a purchaser seeking specific performance of the contract, the rights, if any of the proposed defendant cannot be adjudicated in the suit. Accordingly, the trial Court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.