SOUNDARAJAN Vs. H MAHITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 840 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, is the revision Petitioner herein.

(2.) The Respondent herein filed an application in I.A. No. 1730 of 2009, to implead himself as the second Defendant and that application was allowed and as against the same, this revision petition is filed.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. K. Kalyanasundaram, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision Petitioner that the revision Petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, executed by the second Respondent herein and in a suit for specific performance, third party cannot be impleaded and only the parties, who are parties to the contract can be impleaded and without appreciating the same, the Court below allowed the application. It is his further submission that the first Respondent is the daughter of the second Respondent and the properties were the ancestral properties in the hand of the second Respondent and there was a partition of joint family between the second Respondent and his son on 27.04.1987. In that partition, the suit property was allotted to the second Respondent and when the partition took place in the year 1987, the first Respondent had no right over the ancestral property and she got her right, after the passing of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 1989. Therefore, she is not a necessary party to be impleaded.