K S ABRAHAM Vs. CHANDY ROSAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the plaint schedule property dated 28th March, 1982 executed by the first defendant, is the revision petitioner. The second defendant is his wife, whereas the third defendant is his son.

(2.) Taking the stand that she has improperly been joined as a party to the suit, the second defendant preferred an application under O.1, R.10(2) read with S.151, C.P.C. to have her name removed from the party array. The Court below by the order under challenge, has allowed the said petition.

(3.) A resume of facts essential and requisite to dispose of the question, whether the second defendant has validly been joined as a party to the suit, is stated hereunder : The first defendant in the agreement has conceded that the property is owned by him. It has further been stated therein to the effect that, though he had executed 'a ground rent deed' in favour of the second defendant leasing the land where the theatre building, other structures etc. have been constructed, the second defendant thereby has not got any interest in or possession of the said building, structures etc. or any part of the schedule property. Yet one other statement in the agreement which is relevant in the context, is this : The second defendant has accordingly, been made a formal party to the suit "for the purpose of getting an effective decree for specific performance".